ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: The Codex on July 12, 2010, 09:54:46 AM
-
Hi all,
So I have a couple of rules questions aout the fate system.
First is negative spin, I can't find anything in the rule ook aout what happens if you get a negative role
example: character with no fire arms skill and no fate points left picks up a revolver and fires, they role -4 on the fate dice and does this mean they just fail? or should this have much larger conitation, hand gun explodes/jams etc, where do I find this type of example in the rules and how would other ajudicate this.
Also on the matter of Consequences, if some one takes a serious physical consequence roken Ribs, the way I understand is the first tag against this is free. But if the goons fight the PCs have no fate points how do reflect on going that the character is in large amounts of pain, he surely does not go, ohhh my ribs, ut I can now run a marathon.....
All help is appreciated, I am really trying to get my head around this to run it...
-
See YS:192 "...there are no 'negative shifts'..."
If mundane actions fail, they just fail, no further punishment, at least not from the roll itself.
Spectacular failures like in other systems are handled through compels in the Fate system. If you complicate the life of a character, then he gets a fate point in return.
With spells it's different. See Fallout and Backlash.
@Consequences:
The GM can still compel the consequences, and should do so intensely. So if the character needs to run a marathon, give him a fate point and tell him that he can't.
If he just wants to run a marathon to self compel and milk fate points, and there are no repercussions from not running... tell him to go ahead, and then, if you're evil *g*, give him a fate point compelling him to go to the hospital due to excruciating pain and complications from broken ribs caused by trying to run a marathon. *g*
-
Ok as a follow up to both points,
can the GM, if the player roles really badly in the gun fight example, compel, weapon jammed, or add a sticky aspect to represent the gun jam?
If the player trys to fire it with out clearing the jam would the damage then be done to the player as the gun explodes in his hand??? I am trying to work out how this would work.
Also in regard to the the consequence compels, can you add consequences to items, cars, swords, etc..... if they are treated badly or targeted specifically.
Cheers
-
Ok as a follow up to both points,
can the GM, if the player roles really badly in the gun fight example, compel, weapon jammed, or add a sticky aspect to represent the gun jam?
If the player trys to fire it with out clearing the jam would the damage then be done to the player as the gun explodes in his hand??? I am trying to work out how this would work.
I don't think that you can compel this way, as you have to compel aspects. Most newer guns don't malfunction that often in the first place. They are pretty reliable. Personally I wouldn't compel a good gunfighter as he is supposed to take good care of his gear. I'd probably only do it to wizards when they try to use newer guns by compelling their high concept and declaring that they might unintentionally hex the weapon. Basically if you can find an aspect on the character that might suggest that he is clumsy or simply bad with guns, only then can you compel him to have a weapons malfunction.
You can definitely (try to) create an aspect that you might then compel. But this is tricky and might create bad feelings at the table if you do it too often.
Also in regard to the the consequence compels, can you add consequences to items, cars, swords, etc..... if they are treated badly or targeted specifically.
Cheers
Aspects on items are problematic in some cases. In a scenario where the character picks up a really old or badly cared for gun from one of the goons, you could treat it as a "hidden" temporary aspect that the character pics up with the weapon. If he tries an assessment to check the guns functionality, the aspect (like BADLY GEARED or something) should be revealed. If not you can do the compel any time you want, revealing the aspect on compelling it.
-
FATE 3rd doesn't have any inherent critical failure mechanic. It doesn't matter if you roll -4 on the dice or end up with a really crappy effort. All that happens is that you fail. If you're in competition with someone else (a resisted roll, in other words), you rolling really poorly means that they're going to generate more shifts against you.
Rolling poorly resulting in an Aspect applied to you doesn't feel quite right to me. It's not the worst idea ever or anything. It just feels sort of like you're punishing someone because they rolled poorly, when rolling poorly already seems to me like punishment enough.
-
ok so as a GM would this example be fair,
A feet water student player that has no skill with guns picks up a revolve to try and shoot the homeless crazy attacking his friend. He has no skill in fire arms so skill counts as Mediocre (+0), the character roles his fate dice and gets -, -, -, -, ohh dear.
So he clearly fails he shoot the target however can I then as GM offer him a compel for a sticky aspect on the gun, yes a fate point but theres a problem with the gun.
The player can then decide that he will have another go be damned, try and check the gun, or do something else.
If the player then decides to shoot the gun again can i offer him a compel for the gun to explode in his hand as the second round has hit the first stuck round?
Does this sound right other people????
-
By default? No you can't offer him Compels for any of that, unless there's some appropriate Aspect on him or the scene, he just misses. Badly, but he just misses.
Still, it isn't actually too hard to find Aspects that can be used for such Compels if you look hard enough.
-
Ok then my brain is suffering.
and maybe its because i am trying to learn fate so i can teach my players.
How would a FATE GM who actually knows the system deal with things like faulty equipment, would you even be in that position.
How do things like compels work on an injured player, eg i have broken ribs and still the player wants to fight, what do i do compel him for a minus to his dice pool, i don't feel thats in the spirit of the game. So would i compel him to lie there groaning in pain. i need some help here as i think i am not understanding the system properly.
i have read all the examples but obviously still don't get it.....
-
Faulty equipment? Well, actual faulty equipment would have Aspects like, well, "Faulty" that can be compelled. But whether equipment is faulty would be decided in advance (maybe based on Resources or Contacts rolls to acquire it) not on the spot as a result of a single bad roll.
As for Consequences, you'd likely Compel to eliminate certain courses of action. Like Compelling "Broken Leg" or "Sprained Ankle" to keep the character from moving zones. Something like "Broken Ribs" probably won't get Compelled it will get Invoked by opponents to give them a +2. That's where the 'wound penalties' function of Consequences comes in.
-
Ok, I understand the concept of faulty equipment having that tag, if i was from a failed role to find said equipment or haggle for it. How ever what about a gun jamming type senario. or a weapon malfunction. Like a flame thrower. How do you tag/aspect/compel for that.
Again I completely get the whole concept of leg type injury lowering zone movment. Or a Arm injury raising the difficulty for a might check. But in regard to the crack ribs, thats going to hurt like hell and lets say our goons attacking do not have any fate points to compel against the player for +2, does that mean the player gets off scott free. as in yep i have craked ribs but theres no penelties for mean even hough he has just taken it as a serious consequence!!!!!
-
Ok, I understand the concept of faulty equipment having that tag, if i was from a failed role to find said equipment or haggle for it. How ever what about a gun jamming type senario. or a weapon malfunction. Like a flame thrower. How do you tag/aspect/compel for that.
As a rule, in DFRPG, things don't malfunction like that unless there's a reason for them to (ie: an Aspect of some sort). A gun jamming might also just be an explanation for a low roll if you assume they have it un-jammed by the next round.
Again I completely get the whole concept of leg type injury lowering zone movment. Or a Arm injury raising the difficulty for a might check. But in regard to the crack ribs, thats going to hurt like hell and lets say our goons attacking do not have any fate points to compel against the player for +2, does that mean the player gets off scott free. as in yep i have craked ribs but theres no penelties for mean even hough he has just taken it as a serious consequence!!!!!
"Cracked Ribs" are a Moderate Consequence at worst, IMO. Also, don't forget the free tag that someone gets for putting an Aspect on someone else. I mean, a +2 on their next attack after inflicting a Consequence is a pretty damn good advantage in a fight. Believe me.
-
Thank you for your help deadman :)
so just taking one more quick pass at this. could I make an NPC decleration, assesment that the gun is jammed, forceing the player to do a manuever (gun skill check to remove the offending round) to clear the gun for firing. Would this also be the way I could assess/declare out of ammo on a player, or a player on an NPC? (something like counting the rounds).
For the ribs thing would you then say that the fee tag they get in combat first time is enough. Lets just say for example that my player has created the ultimate toughness meat head and has inhuman toughness and is waring armour (i know this is getting extreme but just trying to make a point) and the gang of NPCs want to make the most of kicking the snot out of the player. They get a free tag for the next atack from one mook. But as low level NPCs they don't get fate points so how does the fact that the player has craked ribs/broken spine/benfit them in combat surely it must?
I can't believe if the player has been really kicked in that he has taken the consequence that after the next shot he can defend himself normally. or would you compel him not to defend hmself because of the pain, or would you recommend he conceeds, or some other variatin, just need a veiw point on what to do.
-
Thank you for your help deadman :)
No problem, I'm always happy to help. :)
so just taking one more quick pass at this. could I make an NPC decleration, assesment that the gun is jammed, forceing the player to do a manuever (gun skill check to remove the offending round) to clear the gun for firing. Would this also be the way I could assess/declare out of ammo on a player, or a player on an NPC? (something like counting the rounds).
Assessment? Probably not. Declaration? Absolutely, and that's a fun and useful idea.
For the ribs thing would you then say that the fee tag they get in combat first time is enough. Lets just say for example that my player has created the ultimate toughness meat head and has inhuman toughness and is waring armour (i know this is getting extreme but just trying to make a point) and the gang of NPCs want to make the most of kicking the snot out of the player. They get a free tag for the next atack from one mook. But as low level NPCs they don't get fate points so how does the fact that the player has craked ribs/broken spine/benfit them in combat surely it must?
Well, if he's taking Consequences (especially Moderate or worse Consequences...and shaking off Minor Consequences makes sense) from mooks who don't have Fate Ponts odds are VERY good (approaching 100% actually) that his Stress Boxes are mostly full and he'll take additional Consequences from anything that gets through his armor...which a hit beefed up by a free +2 is quite likely to do. And then the next guy can tag the new Consequence...and so on and so forth. I suggest playing through a few sample combats before thinking this doesn't work. I think you'll find that it works out very well indeed in play.
I can't believe if the player has been really kicked in that he has taken the consequence that after the next shot he can defend himself normally. or would you compel him not to defend hmself because of the pain, or would you recommend he conceeds, or some other variatin, just need a veiw point on what to do.
See above. The free Tag realy is enough.
-
ye gods I am dumb.... ;)
Of course so they will keep getting over his stress trake forcing another consequence which can be free tagged....
I now believe I begin to understnad where i am going wrong.
On a slightly different tangent. But still rules based. I have a group of all mortals who hunt creatures of a supernatrual nature.....(Think "if you can find them....")
Anyway Crafting allows you to build items of quality for example, but can you use craft to build items for effect as you do for magic crafting as long as it is within reason.
examples could be:
A grenade pack that lets of light (effectivly fufilling the Catch of Vamps/think blade)
A drug cocktail that acts like Harrys coffee potion
Memo armour suit that is flexible but has better armour rating, like Harrys Duster (Batman suit)
basicly can I make potions and enchanted items that are not magical in nature but would level the playoing field of mortals.
A could cannon example would be Kincaids Pig sticker....
-
Sure you can make something like Kincaids spear, or his garlic paintball gun, or get dragonbreath rounds for your shotgun, but they wont work like a potion (in most cases anyways). To get such an item you can a) craft it your self with the crafting skill or b) try to buy it from somebody who makes it using the recourses skill. Perhaps you'll need your connections skill in order to find someone who is willing to make it for you.
When you have acquired the item of your desire it still remains mainly flavor to the game. The most it can do is satisfy the catch of your supernatural opponent (witch is pretty huge actually). It basically comes down on what you can declare, since declares are the death of situational modifiers (as stated in YW). You declare you have something. You declare it the way that it is capable of putting an temporary aspect on you and bang: +2 modifier (on free tag and then every time for a fate point).
In the example of your coffee/drug cocktail this would work very nicely. Kincaids spear would probably be a mix of weapon and gun, allowing for defense and attack with weapons or guns skill (witch ever is higher). Pretty cool.
-
OK then here is my follow up question, and thank you for the previous answer papa gruff :)
Situational modifiers.
Lets just say that my group is fighting a group of black Templars that are in full plate armour. How would you work the fact that the suit of armour is slow and clumbersome.
Is it an Aspect of the Armour do players make a decleration that the helmet restricts vision. How does that work as a reaccuring fact. eg one player declares that said knights helmet restricts his vision to help his sneak past the knight. Another player wants to do the same. Can they both declare the same aspect? or does the second player have to tag (which seems a little unfair) and spend a fate point. Is there such a thing as a continous situational, or free taggable aspect.
Does that make sense?
-
Lets just say that my group is fighting a group of black Templars that are in full plate armour. How would you work the fact that the suit of armour is slow and clumbersome.
As a GM you basically don't. As a player you can declare or assess that the Templars are hindered by their heavy armor to gain a free tag for +2 on them and consequential invokes though the spending of fate points.
Is it an Aspect of the Armour do players make a decleration that the helmet restricts vision. How does that work as a reaccuring fact. eg one player declares that said knights helmet restricts his vision to help his sneak past the knight. Another player wants to do the same. Can they both declare the same aspect? or does the second player have to tag (which seems a little unfair) and spend a fate point. Is there such a thing as a continous situational, or free taggable aspect.
Does that make sense?
As far as I understand it, the knight might defend against the declare/assessment roll with an appropriate skill like alertness, athletics, might or the like. If the player fails the assessment, he doesn't know of the hindrance the armor provides and don't get an aspect to tag. If he fails at a declare, he might think that the armor provides hindrance when it actually does not and get slammed in the face by angry knight that is quicker then anticipated.
In your sneak situation I'd handle it as a team effort. There are rules for teamwork. If you want to make it simpler, you could just let anybody declare and tag on their own or allow everybody a free tag. Don't over think this stuff. Most times guards are meant to be overcome by the players. And think about this: if anybody fails their declaration, their PC might think they outwitted the guards, when they actually might not have and bang! The alarm is raised. Fun!
-
As far as armor being slow and cumbersome, you can just build that into the description of the NPC (no real need for reasonable statistics). As a PC I would want to make a declaration that the armor makes them "Move like a turtle" if I was trying to outrun them.
As far as the field of vision goes, I see your point about the second player. There's no sense rolling dice if it doesn't add to the fun so I would have the group make a single roll to get past the guards as long as they're together.
-
As a GM you basically don't. As a player you can declare or assess that the Templars are hindered by their heavy armor to gain a free tag for +2 on them and consequential invokes though the spending of fate points. Until then they are not hindered what so ever. This is a game of strong narrative. Why should you as a GM do all the work on your own?
As far as I understand it, the knight might defend against the declare/assessment roll with an appropriate skill like alertness, athletics, might or the like. If the player fails the assessment, he doesn't know of the hindrance the armor provides and don't get an aspect to tag. If he fails at a declare, he might think that the armor provides hindrance when it actually does not and get slammed in the face by angry knight that is quicker then anticipated.
In your sneak situation I'd handle it as a team effort. There are rules for teamwork. If you want to make it simpler, you could just let anybody declare and tag on their own or allow everybody a free tag. Don't over think this stuff. Most times guards are meant to be overcome by the players. And think about this: if anybody fails their declaration, their PC might think they outwitted the guards, when they actually might not have and bang! The alarm is raised. Fun!
Dang! I did something wrong again. Sorry. I hate it when this happens. Meant to modify my earlier post. Could somebody with admin power please fix that =(
-
Papa Gruff is a Ninja mind reader, watch out. ;D
-
What would I do without you wonderful people ;D
excellent, can someone point me to the team work roles, I appear to have missed that in my reading d'oh :-[
-
Not sure about where the rules would be for team effort (other than groups building aspects that compliment each other for a big KABOOM kind of finish). Mostly the use of things like this are inferred by the "only roll when you think it would be good for the story" language used throughout the game. Show some latitude to your players and you will see all sorts of experimentation throughout the game.
If you don't tell them there's a box to think outside of, they wont realize that they're doing it naturally.
-
Papa Gruff is a Ninja mind reader, watch out. ;D
Muhahahaha :D
What would I do without you wonderful people ;D
excellent, can someone point me to the team work roles, I appear to have missed that in my reading d'oh :-[
There is something about using other aspects on YW 106 that might be converted to cover this sneaky situation. Teamwork it self is dealt with on YW 208:
Teamwork
You can also use maneuvers (even outside of
conflict) to coordinate on an action with several
people. To do this, one main character is chosen
to make the final action roll (usually the one
with the highest skill), and everyone else makes a
maneuver roll with a skill that could potentially
be used to assist. The difficulty for the assisting
roll should be one or two less than the difficulty
for the main action. Each helper who makes the
maneuver roll places an aspect on the main char-
acter, something like Assistance from X. The
main character can then tag all of those aspects
when he actually makes his action roll (so he can
take advantage of the help without spending a
bucket load of fate points). Enough people coor-
dinating can often lead to herculean success—
many hands, after all, make light work.
I don't see why that shouldn't be applicable in a sneak situation as well.
-
My god you people know your stuff... If only my GM brain worked a little faster, curse the fact it has been pickled by beer......
Ok one more and I am pretty sure that I understand this.
A character decides to hurrle himself in front of a small girl to save her from evil villians and opens up with gunfire to creat a blocking action.....he also needs to reach her one zone over.
Would this count as a guns manuever with a -1 for supplemental moving 1 zone, and the little girl could then use the block action to increase her chances of defense from being grappled by the villian.
I think I am begining to get this....
-
My god you people know your stuff... If only my GM brain worked a little faster, curse the fact it has been pickled by beer......
Ok one more and I am pretty sure that I understand this.
A character decides to hurrle himself in front of a small girl to save her from evil villians and opens up with gunfire to creat a blocking action.....he also needs to reach her one zone over.
Would this count as a guns manuever with a -1 for supplemental moving 1 zone, and the little girl could then use the block action to increase her chances of defense from being grappled by the villian.
I think I am begining to get this....
Yes. The guns action would be -1 due to the supplemental movement.
You have to decide whether it is a maneuver or a block though. If you state that it is a total block, then the girl would not have to do anything to defend herself, as long as the block is held up. You see, it blocks the opponent from doing anything, including attacking the girl. To attack the girl the baddie first has to break the block that is held in place against him. If he fails, then that was it for his action that exchange. In the next exchange the gunman might decide to precede with this block, pinning the opponent further down, using his own action and retreat with the girl until she is save.
It could be done with a maneuver too, but it would be more complicated. I'd go block here.
PS: Gruffs like beer too ;D
-
Ahhh someone else who worships at the temple of beer (hummm i wonder is a beeromancer possible :) )
Ok sorry just thought of something else, is an aspect sticky/fragile which ever, compellable.
For example if you sticky and aspect of on fire onto oil drums could you compel to explode?
-
Ahhh someone else who worships at the temple of beer (hummm i wonder is a beeromancer possible :) )
Ok sorry just thought of something else, is an aspect sticky/fragile which ever, compellable.
For example if you sticky and aspect of on fire onto oil drums could you compel to explode?
I'd say yes. It is an invoke for effect. YW 99.
A fragile aspect is always only free for tag, as it goes away in the sub consequent exchange. Only a sticky aspect may be compelled after the tag.
-
You see, it blocks the opponent from doing anything, including attacking the girl.
That's a Grapple, right? Because a regular block might only block one type of action, but a Grapple blocks everything a target tries.
-
I mean, a Grapple is also a Block, just a specific type of Block.
-
I mean, a Grapple is also a Block, just a specific type of Block.
Yeah you are right with both. Got confused a bit myself there. The example stays valid though. If the one guy blocks the baddie from attacking the girl through a cover fire or something, then he can't attack the girl, can he?
There is the optional rule box for expanding the grapple into other skills. It could be used for a guns action that way. I probably wouldn't allow it in my game though. A block against movement or attack should resolve the example situation in any case.
-
Ok want to expand this example a little, as have an email conversation to one of my potential players and he has a fair and interesting question of what happens next from the example.
So his character reaches the little girl and the thug has been able to get her.
He then wants to do the following shoot the steam pipe next to the thug to tag the manuever blinded. all seems fair so far. he then tags it for free to dodge the stumbling thug with little girl in his arms (-1 as might is lower than athletics), in the next turn can he tag blinded a second time (would not work if only a fragile aspect right?) to allow him to do a stealth/athletics role to slip into the shadows to escape the thug?
-
If the one guy blocks the baddie from attacking the girl through a cover fire or something, then he can't attack the girl, can he?
He can if he scores high enough to bypass the Block. Basically the Blocking character is trying to replace the girl's Defense by directly raising the difficulty to hit her. She might get hit anyway, but the shifts of stress she takes will be determined by the attacker's successes minus the Block successes or the girl's Defense whichever is higher!
So say the attacker gets 6 successes, the Blocker got 5 successes and the girl got 4 on her Defense roll. The girl only takes 1 stress, not 2.
-
He then wants to do the following shoot the steam pipe next to the thug to tag the manuever blinded. all seems fair so far. he then tags it for free to dodge the stumbling thug with little girl in his arms (-1 as might is lower than athletics), in the next turn can he tag blinded a second time (would not work if only a fragile aspect right?) to allow him to do a stealth/athletics role to slip into the shadows to escape the thug?
The second one wouldn't be a tag, since it wouldn't be free, it would be an invoke, compel, or declaration and would cost a FP.
-
The second one wouldn't be a tag, since it wouldn't be free, it would be an invoke, compel, or declaration and would cost a FP.
Quite right. The good guy doesn't need to tag the aspect for defense though. If he decides that he can dodge the bad guy easy enough without tagging, then he still can tag the aspect on his next attack action for free. The fragile aspect holes the hole of the next exchange.