I don't think we get any official attention here. there's been a number if questions that continue to go unanswered. its quite disappointing.
*boggles* Have you even tried emailing him directly? He's VERY responsive to player needs and requests. Here, however, there's no room service. :D
Plus, this is a discussion forum, not a help desk - as much as everyone here likes to help where they can, Fred's WAY too busy to do more with this forum than take care of administrative jobs.
n fact, I'll point out that several questions had been cropping up on the board more than once, and perhaps he can find the time to come answer them. If not, I'll be happy if *I* get the answers... then I'll come share them. ;)
Excellent - I opted to ask him a few of my questions, and learned that you had asked him first, so when you get something, please definitely share them!
Me: Is there any one good plcae to go for official answers other than using this system? A mailing list? Forum somewhere else? Communion with the dead?
Fred: The Fate community relies heavily on peer authority. That means your fellow players and readers' answers are more readily available and just as good as ones we might be able to provide.
So the forum you're already on? Official. Peer authority.
The other places I could point you, like the FateRPG Yahoo Group? Official. Peer authority.
Official word-from-the-publisher? That concept doesn't play, here.
My thoughts, here, not emailed to Fred: I don't entirely buy the whole peer authority thing, simply because they bothered to publish the game in the first place, with rules they made, playtested, and put into print. With that in mind, I don't grok the entire peer authority thing. Note, I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying that it doesn't feel right. Perhaps someone can explain this mindset to me?
Me: Fire: Dresden goes around setting people and places on fire all the time, but there are no rules for ongoing damage applied by the players; only aspects like On Fire, which does no ongoing damage, just becomes taggable; Claws with Venomous; environmental damage defined by the GM; and grapples, which does a mere 1 damage per turn, which seems appropriate for choking someone, but not for setting someone on fire. Should there not be some means of creating ongoing damage by the player (setting them on fire, whether by fire spell or molotov cocktail) that goes beyond 1 damage grapples?
Fred: Nope. You're thinking about simulating the fire of physical concepts. The game does not simulate physical concepts. It simulates story concepts. A story that goes like "The target burned; then he burned some more; then he burned some more; then he burned some more" is dull as dirt. What fire does in a story is force people to take action or change what they'd otherwise do (that's where tagging and invoke-for-effect and compel logic from aspects should play in). That said, if you want to construct your "ongoing fire" spell like a grapple, certainly, go ahead and do that. Or if you want to create one spell that makes two attacks, the second one delayed, go ahead and do that if your GM's willing to allow that kind of thing (but man, that's gonna be a difficult one). But the aspect notion should really be doing most of the heavy lifting here because of the role that fire plays in the story.
My thoughts, here, not emailed to Fred: And how does this work then? How is the game played with a target on fire? A compel every turn by the GM? The PC compelling the target to behave in some fashion? Something else? See, someone on fire, to me, should be taking damage in some fashion, and it just drives me nuts not thinking that way.
One of the things that I've found unique about DFRPG (and Fate by extension) is that it's all about the table coming together to create a story. Sure there's a GM but his job is more to facilitate the creation of drama and adversity, as well as help the others with the rules, etc. He's not god, and he's not the enemy. This attitude is just an extension of that concept. We're all trying to collaborate to create the best story (and storytelling method) we can. An important thing to remember though is that you are one of us, a peer so to speak. If something doesn't work for you or you think you have a better idea, then by all means do what you would like.
One of the things you should remember is that a compel (or invocation for effect) can have many different results. If you put an aspect of "on fire" on a normal person then it's totally logical to compel them (once) to a "taken out" result, like perhaps he's taken out because he's writhing on the ground on fire, or maybe they're badly burned and shock is setting in, etc. In addition you should be able to invoke the aspect in further attacks to increase the damage done as if you're hitting the burned area and causing further damage. Most people are going to try real hard to not be "on fire" anymore so if they're sturdy enough to withstand it originally then likely they'll maneuver soon to remove the aspect.
As I said, dude's busy.
Morfedel, I really only want to address one thing: the bit where you say you "don't buy the peer authority thing". In a cooperative RPG, peer authority IS the ultimate authority. RPGers not in your group have researched, discussed and hammered out ideas; it'd be foolish to dismiss everything they've produced. And RPGers who are IN your group... well, the game's intended to be an agreement between the players and the GM individually and in concert, so what your peers think very much DOES apply.
Pardon me in advance if the following comes out harshly, but I'm really hoping to pound the point through unmistakably: if you still have a problem with something in the rules, take it to your GM and your partymates. It's counterproductive to keep coming back to Fred with "Yeahbuts" on the same items. In other words, figure it out amongst yourselves. In the end, that's what any RPG group does anyway.
Yeah... I really don't want this system to be anything at all like D&D where there are so many rules you need a steel book case to contain all the books and some rules contradict each other.*snort*
Of all the games I have chosen to sink my time into, this is it... and it's not just because I love the DF.
Would it be too much to ask for the letter of the rule to be its spirit and there is no need to house rule?Yes it is too much to ask, because everyone is going to approach the letter of the rules and the spirit of the rules different as determined by their individual experiences, biases and perspectives. You cannot have a universal consensus of an interpretation of a written document in any environment where that is true. Your own arguments in other threads illustrate this better than I can ever attempt to! For example the recent "Can Luccio use computers since it's her stated hobby?" debate; most people in the thread have agreed that her knowledge is theoretical, or at best, has her empirical/practical knowledge limited to programming code written on paper, but you've been arguing otherwise.
Yes it is too much to ask, because everyone is going to approach the letter of the rules and the spirit of the rules different as determined by their individual experiences, biases and perspectives. You cannot have a universal consensus of an interpretation of a written document in any environment where that is true. Your own arguments in other threads illustrate this better than I can ever attempt to! For example the recent "Can Luccio use computers since it's her stated hobby?" debate; most people in the thread have agreed that her knowledge is theoretical, or at best, has her empirical/practical knowledge limited to programming code written on paper, but you've been arguing otherwise.Since you have chosen to use that debate in another thread as an example, then I think I should submit a rebuttal. In that very thread, I had stated that in the dominant paradigm of mortal wizards of the setting, her knowledge being theoretical was the most plausible explanation. What I have been arguing is that in the context of an alternative idea of hexing (the title of that thread), could we not interpret her statements to be her knowledge only being theorectical?
Since you have chosen to use that debate in another thread as an example, then I think I should submit a rebuttal. In that very thread, I had stated that in the dominant paradigm of mortal wizards of the setting, her knowledge being theoretical was the most plausible explanation. What I have been arguing is that in the context of an alternative idea of hexing (the title of that thread), could we not interpret her statements to be her knowledge only being theorectical?
What I am saying in this thread is wouldn't a product that had less need to house rule be better than one that depended on it being house ruled?
Since you have chosen to use that debate in another thread as an example, then I think I should submit a rebuttal. In that very thread, I had stated that in the dominant paradigm of mortal wizards of the setting, her knowledge being theoretical was the most plausible explanation. What I have been arguing is that in the context of an alternative idea of hexing (the title of that thread), could we not interpret her statements to be her knowledge only being theorectical?You're being obtuse. I was giving an example, drawn from your own recent postings, on how consensus on the interpretation of the written word is almost impossible, not an excuse for you to draw the argument onto another thread. But that very difficulty of consensus that you just illustrated--misinterpreting my post as an invitation to explain your exampled argument from another thread instead of seeing it as the intended example--is the reason legal documents are written in the format widely known as "legalese", to eliminate as much ambiguity as possible from the document in question.
What I am saying in this thread is wouldn't a product that had less need to house rule be better than one that depended on it being house ruled?No. Not unless it was written by lawyers and proofread by judges. And even then, there'd be appeals to the bench. It is simple impossible to eliminate all of the ambiguity in a functional written document to the point that there will be no house rulings. In fact, by trying to nail down the ambiguities will simply create more, as there is no way you can anticipate every possible situation and contingency--sooner or later, the GM is going to have to rule on something, and in the meantime, you've just made it harder for the GM, as he's now no longer encouraged to use his own judgment.
Do you do anything in these threads other than argue? Usually over semantics?To answer your question, yes, I think I do.
Now that is the question.
I was giving an example, drawn from your own recent postings, on how consensus on the interpretation of the written word is almost impossible, not an excuse for you to draw the argument onto another thread. But that very difficulty of consensus that you just illustrated--misinterpreting my post as an invitation to explain your exampled argument from another thread instead of seeing it as the intended example--is the reason legal documents are written in the format widely known as "legalese", to eliminate as much ambiguity as possible from the document in question.I did see that you intended it as an example but I also saw it as an invalid one and tried to show why. However, if your point here is to illustrate that it is impossible to eliminate all ambigiuity, then I think I get your point.
I did see that you intended it as an example but I also saw it as an invalid one and tried to show why. However, if your point here is to illustrate that it is impossible to eliminate all ambigiuity, then I think I get your point.Thank you. And if that one short paragraph--being written and composed so that it will be able to appeal to first hand experiences on your part (the debate and attendant differential in opinion) with the intent to illustrate more clearly the point that perfect consensus in written form interpretation is impossible--was ambiguous, extrapolate from there how hard it would be to eliminate all ambiguity in a gaming document to the point of not requiring house ruling.
Dr. Fred Hicks is my father.
Me, I'm a guy who has about 10 hours a week, if he's lucky and his 19 month old kid doesn't demand too much attention, to run and grow a fledgling game company while making less than McDonald's employee compensation for doing so. So, no, I won't be showing up on a forum with regularity, unless you can find me the time and pay me a rate equivalent to what my time is worth -- based on my freelance layout work, that might come out to, say, $50 per detailed answer-set like the one today. Totally ball parking it.
The other developers who occasionally find the time to show up and answer a question? Also completely uncompensated for such volunteer efforts.
If that's disappointing to you, I get it. But I can't help you.
As I said, dude's busy.
Morfedel, I really only want to address one thing: the bit where you say you "don't buy the peer authority thing". In a cooperative RPG, peer authority IS the ultimate authority. RPGers not in your group have researched, discussed and hammered out ideas; it'd be foolish to dismiss everything they've produced. And RPGers who are IN your group... well, the game's intended to be an agreement between the players and the GM individually and in concert, so what your peers think very much DOES apply.
Pardon me in advance if the following comes out harshly, but I'm really hoping to pound the point through unmistakably: if you still have a problem with something in the rules, take it to your GM and your partymates. It's counterproductive to keep coming back to Fred with "Yeahbuts" on the same items. In other words, figure it out amongst yourselves. In the end, that's what any RPG group does anyway.
Let's keep it down to a low simmer sans the personal stuff, folks.
This, except, from me also. Let's try to keep this thread from being like the rest of the Internet, as much as we can, please. Thanks!
-Lenny
You know, that's not a half-bad idea. A maneuver to create an aspect to create a compel. I will have to think on that.
See? Peer authority = AWESOME. Fred said at one point that no matter how many fantastic ideas a design team has, the sheer number of players means that somebody somewhere is BOUND to come up with an idea/response that will leave theirs in the dust. (He may not have said precisely that, but that was the main bullet that I went home with.)
Now if I could just travel back in time and stop that email from going out... sigh....
I understand the concept of cooperative play. I've played Ars Magica, for instance. But this whole loosie goose approach to the rules is an entirely different animal, and one I'm unaccustomed to. I'll try to adapt my thinking.
Just a note... if you had REALLY damaged his calm you would have been involuntarily vacated. At least for a little bit. ;)
And if that is likewise insufficient, then tell me and I'll vacate the premises.
A lot of role playing games -- especially some of the older ones -- try to have a rule for everything. There's a rule for falling, and a rule for fire, and a rule for how long you can hold your breath. This results in a lot of support, but also a lot of rules.
The way most Fate games work is by giving you a small number of rules, showing you how you might apply them, and then letting you use the tools you need to run the game you want. And those rules apply to story logic, not to physics logic.
So let's look at a burning room.
The obvious thing to do is slap an Aspect on it. This opens up your typical suite of options, with players invoking it, compels happening, and all that.
For whatever reason, you decide that's not enough. You want the fact that the room is burning to be way more important than that. You want it to really up the danger. How do you do that?
Environmental hazards (page 325) are one place to start. You want this to be pretty dangerous, so you assign a hazard rating of +4, and you give it weapon:3. Now, being in or crossing the zones that are on fire is frigging dangerous.
Or maybe that's too harsh. Hm, what else could you do?
A block seems reasonable. So you assign it a rating based on how hard you think it is to cross that area. Now anyone who wants to cross the fire has to bypass the block somehow.
A maneuver also seems reasonable. Anyone in a fire based zone needs to resist a maneuver to place some Aspect such as, "Choking on smoke," on them. Anyone affected gets free tagged into choking helplessly, which they can resist either by rolling better on the maneuver or by spending a fate point.
The reason there isn't one standard way of handling a room being on fire is that its importance to the story varies from instance to instances. Sometimes it's a coat of narrative spray paint. Sometimes it's the central conflict of the scene. Having one carefully defined set of rules to cover all house fires means that sometimes you're going to be fighting the rules to use them in a particular scene.
"He who spoils the cheer buys the beer." (Or something very much like that. ;) )
Crap. I hope that doesn't include everyone who is a member of the forum... :)I don't like beer, so I'll pass. Can't speak for everyone else, though. ;)
Crap. I hope that doesn't include everyone who is a member of the forum... :)
3. Another possibility, a maneuver (again using Conviction or Discipline perhaps?) put on a zone, that applies the aspect "Magic Threshold" on said zone... then the GM uses the aspect as a mass compel against Binder's thugs, ruling it as an all-or-nothing, they all accept or all are refused, since they are the exact same type and strength, thus all being effected the same... (in the same vein that every human would be effected the same way when exposed to a vacuum, if they don't have the gear to prevent it?) Only problem with this last is, Binder would get a heaping ton of fate points that way.... unless his goons, in this case, each got their own fate point as they faded away, so if Binder ever brought them back...?
Yes, yes, you're right and I'm wrong. Have a cookie, on me. :)
Now if I could just travel back in time and stop that email from going out... sigh....
So then, using this train of logic as an example... making a magic circle to take out Binder's horde of gray weird-mouthed demon thingies, who are using ecto-suits:
1. I could rule it as a threshold of sorts. How would you rate the strength of said threshold? I ask because even Butters made a magic circle, with no training and only a brief explanation really, so it seems that no real skill is entailed. So, perhaps something seemingly innocuous, like Conviction or Discipline, which everyone has at least a little of, believing that they are actually going to make a circle, and when completed, snaps shut, creating the threshold? Although perhaps Molly started by applying the aspect "slow but steady" on herself, since she had to make it right the first time, and make it big to capture everything?
2. Meanwhile, Dresden, in his own circle to protect him... perhaps again using Conviction or Discipline, made his circle, as a Block against anything trying to get in at him, from the supernatural sect of things?
3. Another possibility, a maneuver (again using Conviction or Discipline perhaps?) put on a zone, that applies the aspect "Magic Threshold" on said zone... then the GM uses the aspect as a mass compel against Binder's thugs, ruling it as an all-or-nothing, they all accept or all are refused, since they are the exact same type and strength, thus all being effected the same... (in the same vein that every human would be effected the same way when exposed to a vacuum, if they don't have the gear to prevent it?) Only problem with this last is, Binder would get a heaping ton of fate points that way.... unless his goons, in this case, each got their own fate point as they faded away, so if Binder ever brought them back...?
I think I'm missing something because I see no need for rules for circles. Just like in the books when a player draws a circle and throws a bit of will into it, it blocks all magic. Simple as that, no mess no fuss and the story moves on.
We know that sufficiently powerful things can break through circles. You have only to look to Fool Moon and the loup-garou. That thing goes through normal circles like they're made of paper.
Likewise, I wouldn't expect a line of chalk to stop Mab or an angel. And I can't imagine that it would hold a Denarian for too terribly long
That's why rules for circles would be nice. I like having rules more solid than, "Eh, leave it up to the GM."
That's why rules for circles would be nice. I like having rules more solid than, "Eh, leave it up to the GM."
Well, we have some guidance on that already with the rules as written: need to stop an Epic attack? Use a Thaumaturgy ritual with Epic shifts of Complexity. Pretty simple. Add 4 at least to account for a phenomenal die roll, and maybe 5 more to counter a few Aspects. Them add shifts for duration if applicable.
I'm talking about a non-wizard throwing up a shield. They don't get to use thaumaturgy, but they're allowed to use circles.
I'm capable of using spell-casters' abilities to model this. I'm talking about circles, which aren't restricted to the realm of casters.
The question remains: how strong is that "common ritual" Circle?
Going that route, it would be just another Evocation Block.
Which is problematic in that such circles would pretty much suck. Your normal person isn't going to have terribly good stats for casting spells. So they're going to be able to produce things like a +2 Block that lasts two turns.
Well, not exactly - a Ritual would still use Thaumaturgy time frames, not Evocation, so that Circle would (hypothetically) be lasting until the next sunrise unless destroyed or dismissed soon. Not as bad as an Evocation Block, but still low-powered.
I guess if you're willing to assume that it's not only a common ritual but that it's Thaum at Evo speed. Because the book says that Thaum should take at least a minute to use, and that's longer than drawing a circle and putting a drop of blood on it.
I think that very well reflects that if a normal person took a bit of time, they could throw up a powerful circle (limited only by his lore) with the common ritual trapping.
I'm not sure what you mean by "normal people drawing circles with chalk sometimes causing explosions" mouse
Failed rolls can result in backlash and fallout.
Failed rolls can result in backlash and fallout.
And I don't see that happening in the fiction.
I've already decided on a set of rules for my game. I'm going to have it work like this:
Roll Lore at a difficulty of +1. If you succeed, you've put up a circle with a Threshold value equal to the higher of your Lore and Conviction.
It's not perfect, but it's simple and would model how stuff works in the book a little better.
A wonderful starting point! Would spellcasters (who presumably have the tools and training to do this the right way) default to this method, or would this be solely for the under-initiated?
I figure that casters can do circles this way, or they can opt for Thauaturgy to make more impressive circles. If you want to hold something that isn't a mook, you really should leave it up to the professionals.
Hm. Now that I write that out, perhaps the default Threshold should be 2 for all basic circles, just like normal Thresholds. This makes Thaumaturgy a more appealing option, which I feel it should be.
Then perhaps use an application of the Spin rules. If you get Spin, it counts as one thing in favour of the Threshold, which raises it to 4. This means that people with good Lore are better with circles, even if they're not an actual caster.
Yeah. I think I like this better.
Actually, unless I missed an errata or something, RAW is starting threshold strength is 3, not 2. And, I already mentioned using this as a basis about a page ago, albeit with different rolling mechanics.
Actually, unless I missed an errata or something, RAW is starting threshold strength is 3, not 2.
"Most thresholds or other things that ground out magical energy (like a source of running water) have a base strength of Fair (+2)" [DFRPG, YS page 231].
The +3 strength you're thinking of is holy ground. It's in the same paragraph as the line I just quoted.
And I saw your suggestion. I just felt that it was too effective, because it added your shifts to the base. Mine outputs two possible blocks that are useful without being nuts.
And I don't see that happening in the fiction. Almost all of the mortal magic in the Dresdenverse relies on willpower, with some effort to take physics and thermodynamics into account. This, by contrast, seems to be a thing which is supposed to Just Work by rote, like the way magic is mostly handled in the Potterverse.
So why is this in the rulebook? Or, like with the holy ground / threshold thing, did I miss something else? Seems to be par for the course with me lately....
I am by no means advocating the suspension of Backlash/Fallout - I think they add to the drama of the game.
But those things aren't present in the fiction upon which the game is based. Ergo they are problematic.
Fallout effects the environment. Have we seen anything like this in the fiction? I do recall a couple times where discussion of losing control of magic was really bad. For example, when Cowl was trying to become a God at the end, racing against the other necromancers. Losing control of the ritual was a bad thing.
What about using Fallout from your own spells to your benefit?
I recall in Proven Guilty(click to show/hide)
How would one go about something like that, in-game? Would that have been considered "Fallout"?
OK as the guy who kinda started this whole can of worms I wanted to jump in real quick.
First and formost, I honestly did NOT mean any disrepect to Fred or his father with my post title. I was trying to be clever and lacked for charm and grace. I apologise.
Second, I really didn't want to turn this into a "Poke Fred with sharp sticks" inquiry. Fred as we should all know is an extreamly busy individual with both family and work, and I shouldn't have tried to monopolise his time.
My response is late coming due to my very sporadic intetnet access.
Thank-you.
What about using Fallout from your own spells to your benefit?
I recall in Proven Guilty(click to show/hide)
How would one go about something like that, in-game? Would that have been considered "Fallout"?
Yeah, Harry totally set that building on fire and started a war with the RCV. Talk about losing control.
The building's on fire. And it was my fault.
Was that accidental? From what I recall, it was basically on purpose.Fuego! Pyro Fuego! Burn you greasy rat faced bastards, burn!
Fuego! Pyro Fuego! Burn you greasy rat faced bastards, burn!
Yeah, I'd say on purpose.
On a somewhat lager scale would be the same effect on Lake Michigan boat pier in White Night.
I figure it would be an evocation with a zone effect, with Harry's "player" asking to establish a new aspect on the scene, with at least a Fate Point to take a fire evocation and establish the opposite effect.
Either way, as a GM I would reward the player for imagination by saying "yes", and also say "It's gonna cost a Fate Point" for pulling off something normally outside the bounds of Fire Magic.
I have to admit I enjoy reading this thread, but for the most part I have no clue what you're talking about. Gaming is a whole 'nother language. :)
You should see the conversations people have about abstract gaming theory stuff.You'd inflict that on someone just getting into gaming?! Brutal.
Or maybe you shouldn't. Maybe it'd make you want to back away slowly, without making any sudden movements.This. Definitely. Or just run as fast as possible. :)
In any case, welcome Lash. Hope you enjoy gaming as much as I have!I don't plan on doing any gaming. I'm strictly an observer. But thanks for the welcome. :)
And as someone who doesn't game very often, I've got to say that I'm seriously impressed by the DFRPG. It has me itching to start playing again.
DO IT! Give in to the Dark Side.
This is Dresden Files, so it's more like the "Charred Side."Damn you! That's a horrible pun!