ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: ryanroyce on July 27, 2010, 12:16:57 PM
-
I'm gearing up to run a new game and one of my players wants to play the scion of a dragon, several generations removed. So, knowing he also wanted to be an Irishman, I did a little research and decided to attach his family to this guy (http://www.blackdrago.com/fame/paiste.htm). In that legend, the Saint initially bound the dragon with three rods of reeds. To reflect that, I wanted to give his descendents a Catch on their Inhuman Strength related to reeds (and perhaps other plant-based bindings, like hemp). I figured a +1 discount was appropriate.
Has anyone else ever done something similar?
-
what does it mean to have a catch on a non-toughness power, from a game system standpoint? What does it mean that the catch for his strength powers are reeds?
-
Like Kryptonite? Yeah I can see that working as a catch. +1 if it will rarely come up and/or it only effects his strength power. +2 or +3 if he loses all powers within it's radius (like some sort of super catch).
Alternatively you could model it as a block, using a related aspect to declare he can't break it. That's not as fun though and he could potentially buy his way out with a fate point.
-
Sounds like a good trouble aspect not a catch. People are always attacking you. People aren't always tying your hands. A catch would have to be something like kryptonite or Faerie magic (in proximity of <catch>)
-
I wouldn't go as far to attach a catch to something that is not supposed to have one. In my opinion it has a good reason that strength and speed powers don't need a catch. Think about it. You spend comparatively huge amounts of refresh for those to boost your fighting strength. Not being able to use it is more of an issue then not being able to use your toughness, as you technically still remain some possible means of defense and - in most chases - the larger part of your stress track.
Taking away a strength power through a catch might cripple a PC or NPC more then you might think.
Instead of attaching the strength to a catch I would simply compel the high concept of the PC or NPC to not being able to use it under the binding of the reeds. If he decides that he can manage, then he should be able to break them. He isn't a dragon after all, he is a scion of a dragon. You could even go as far and escalate the compel if you are dead set against letting the PC break free during a situation, offering one more fate point. But thats probably the extend to witch I would go in this situation.
-
A catch would have to be something like kryptonite or Faerie magic (in proximity of <catch>)
Not necessarily. A catch can be a minor thing like bindings through reeds. It will just not give the same level of refund.
-
I really disagree. Under that vein all wizards should get +2 towards evocation. Those antimagic chains are hard to come by but everyone knows they cancel wizard powers.
-
I really disagree. Under that vein all wizards should get +2 towards evocation. Those antimagic chains are hard to come by but everyone knows they cancel wizard powers.
I'm afraid that I haven't understood your point correctly. Nevertheless you present a good reason why powers (apart from toughness powers) should not be applied to a catch. If we would allow for that, then the possibility you describe would certainly be appropriate, meaning that evocation as well as thaumaturgy should always get a +2 refund...
Yet I can't see that everyone in the Dresdenvers is aware of the thorn manacles... Even so. A temporal aspect combined with compels seem to be the way to go when trying to restrict strength or wizard powers.
-
I think it depends on the nature of the reeds. If they are quite common and the legend can be found out easily enough then I might allow it, if they are rare then it works better as the aspect.
@JohnGalt - That's a very good example as to how this could be broken, but I can't imagine a GM ever allowing that to happen. Using the reeds as a catch could be abused, but as the GM himself suggested it I think it's probably quite balanced.
brb, just gonna give my evocation a +2 catch. In fact my wizard wears a t-shirt with the slogan 'I hate anti-magic manacles' so I'm going to call it a +3 catch and so I save some refresh on thaumaturgy too.
:)
-
it really depends on how the catch has a mechanical effect on things. For toughness powers, the catch allows attacks to bypass those powers, which is a tangible thing. Binding by reeds is not using a catch, it is compelling a high concept. Now, if having the catch in the proximity of the person always negates strength powers without a compel, I could see that as being a valid reason to give refresh benefits, but otherwise, don't use a catch, just handle weaknesses through compels.
-
Maybe you can use ther catch to allow him use his strenght on non-organic things (like tearing a chain mail) but not against a puny cheap hemp rope or a bad guy decked in a real Samurai Armor...
Still a catch on an offansive (and active) ability is a bit iffy
-
I don't see a problem as such with power limitations (or catches) as long as they are limitations. It is a fairly common approach to most points based RPGs.
For example the full shapechange ability cost -4 and the single change form costs -1. Someone wants any natural non-extinct animal and disguise (human form) that is probably worth -3 or -4 with a +1 limitation.
-
I don't see a problem as such with power limitations (or catches) as long as they are limitations. It is a fairly common approach to most points based RPGs.
This is rather vague and doesn't help me very much in understanding the discussion at hand. How exactly do you see a catch on Strength powers providing a limitation on play, that the pre-existing mechanic of compels does not already cover?
-
Toughness powers have a catch because they have a bigger mechanical impact than "use the power or don't." Namely, they influence how much damage the character takes, how many stress boxes they have to absorb it, and how quickly any related consequences go away. What you're describing is just a specific circumstance in which the character can't use his power, which is best handled by a compel on his high concept aspect.
-
Toughness powers have a catch because they have a bigger mechanical impact than "use the power or don't." Namely, they influence how much damage the character takes, how many stress boxes they have to absorb it, and how quickly any related consequences go away. What you're describing is just a specific circumstance in which the character can't use his power, which is best handled by a compel on his high concept aspect.
Dagnabbit, how did I miss that luminos posted this exact same thing just a little ways upthread?
-
I don't see a problem as such with power limitations (or catches) as long as they are limitations. It is a fairly common approach to most points based RPGs.
For example the full shapechange ability cost -4 and the single change form costs -1. Someone wants any natural non-extinct animal and disguise (human form) that is probably worth -3 or -4 with a +1 limitation.
Human form is +1 and affects all supernatural powers. It kind of refutes your whole argument.
-
what does it mean to have a catch on a non-toughness power, from a game system standpoint? What does it mean that the catch for his strength powers are reeds?
In this particular case, it would mean that he couldn't break reed bindings (and possibly hemp rope) because they would actively weaken him, sapping all his strength (mechanically speaking, his Might would be reduced to Terrible (-2)). I wasn't quite satisfied with this method, though.
OTOH, I hadn't considered just making it a part of his High Concept, which seems like it would be a better solution.