ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Tush Hog on January 15, 2013, 12:47:45 AM
-
We see a couple of examples in the books of a spell caster shutting down a lesser caster.
Seems like a Block is the way to go, but not sure about the best way to implement it.
Would the block be set against the Calling up of Power? The amount of power drawn in by the adversary would have to beat the block. Or would it be better that the block be set against the spell casting roll?
-
Definitely the roll, that's the way blocks work. It's just a flat block against spellcasting (possibly with Zone Wide and certainly with some duration thrown on starting the second turn if you're doing it as Evocation...there's a reason whoever's doing this can't do much else). Any spell has to overcome it to work at all.
The Thaumaturgy version is easier and more effective...but requires a piece of the target, which can be tricky to get.
-
Many thanks!
-
Or you can do it as a maneuver and then tag for effect.
-
Or you can do it as a maneuver and then tag for effect.
That's risky as hell, though, since they can refuse the Compel.
-
That's risky as hell, though, since they can refuse the Compel.
This is GM-dependent. Some GMs will never refuse compels, some will do so often, some will encourage you to double down on the compel.
-
As a GM, I would never personally refuse a compel/invoke that required the player to use up an action. I just comes across as cheating a player out of an action. If I were to refuse the player, I would probably just let them know before they made the maneuver. But that's just me.
-
As a GM, I would never personally refuse a compel/invoke that required the player to use up an action. I just comes across as cheating a player out of an action. If I were to refuse the player, I would probably just let them know before they made the maneuver. But that's just me.
I would. Forcing the enemy to spend an FP refusing is worthwhile in and of itself.
-
I would. Forcing the enemy to spend an FP refusing is worthwhile in and of itself.
That's provided you're keeping close track on an NPC's fatepoint count, which I get the sense most GMs don't, and I agree, it's cheating the player out of that preparation stage.
-
The best way to go would certainly be the thaumaturgy option, that is the safest and should work pretty much all the time.
Another idea is one I had a while ago, though I have not tested it yet, so take it as the experiment it is. Basically it would be to adopt the grappling rules to a sort of wizards-mind-duel. The attacking wizard would need to put up a maneuver from one of his spells, that is related to shutting the other wizard down. Once established, he can tag it to enter the other wizard into a conviction-grapple. Since it is not physical, the wizard can not use the "move" option, and inflicting (in this case mental) stress would probably bring you dangerously close to lawbreaker territory. However, as long as you roll your conviction higher than he does, you got him blocked out.
-
The way that me and my friends do is just have a pile of FP for all NPC's equal to one for every PC
-
That's provided you're keeping close track on an NPC's fatepoint count, which I get the sense most GMs don't, and I agree, it's cheating the player out of that preparation stage.
I sure as hell do. Why wouldn't you? I mean, it's one to two at most for most enemies, so it's not like it's that hard...
Heck, even if doing the pool method (which seems a reasonable alternative), this'd remove an FP from the pool.
-
I sure as hell do. Why wouldn't you? I mean, it's one to two at most for most enemies, so it's not like it's that hard...
Heck, even if doing the pool method (which seems a reasonable alternative), this'd remove an FP from the pool.
I agree. I've only run a couple sessions, but managing Fate Points for NPC's seems hugely important, and exactly the sort of thing that should be done legitly. A 0 refresh baddy finds them HUGELY important (and losing one would be equally huge), since had to have a significant setback to get one in the first place. I wouldn't feel bad at all if the Big Bad dropped one buying out of a bad Compel, and I'd hope my PC's would realise exactly how big of a setback that is for him.
'Cheating' or fudging Fate Point totals would seem really... unpleasant in this system. As the GM, I already have Compels and such as tools, playing loose with Fate Points seems underhanded somehow.
-
I sure as hell do. Why wouldn't you? I mean, it's one to two at most for most enemies, so it's not like it's that hard...
Heck, even if doing the pool method (which seems a reasonable alternative), this'd remove an FP from the pool.
I generally don't have my NPCs ever use fate points at all (or at least, the enemy NPCs because they tend to be badguys tailored to fight groups--friendly NPCs I treat as GMPCs), so them spending one means little as far as their resources go.
And if a player's going to go to the trouble to try and shut down an NPC's major ability, it seems unfair to me to have the NPC buy out for the meager price of one fate point and retain their full faculty for the duration of the scene.
-
I agree. I've only run a couple sessions, but managing Fate Points for NPC's seems hugely important, and exactly the sort of thing that should be done legitly. A 0 refresh baddy finds them HUGELY important (and losing one would be equally huge), since had to have a significant setback to get one in the first place. I wouldn't feel bad at all if the Big Bad dropped one buying out of a bad Compel, and I'd hope my PC's would realise exactly how big of a setback that is for him.
'Cheating' or fudging Fate Point totals would seem really... unpleasant in this system. As the GM, I already have Compels and such as tools, playing loose with Fate Points seems underhanded somehow.
This. So very, very, much this. NPCs FP totals are every bit as important as PCs by the default rules, and any House Rule that changes that is...potentially problematic, given how closely the FP and Aspect mechanics are tied into everything else in the system. The pooled method works (though I've argued before and will again that, for fairness, people using this method should let PCs freely swap FP around), but just saying they have as many as they want or the GM finds convenient? No, no, no.
I generally don't have my NPCs ever use fate points at all (or at least, the enemy NPCs because they tend to be badguys tailored to fight groups--friendly NPCs I treat as GMPCs), so them spending one means little as far as their resources go.
That's reasonable enough if it works for you...but not how the system is intended to work at all. So of limited utility for people who are using the system as written.
And if a player's going to go to the trouble to try and shut down an NPC's major ability, it seems unfair to me to have the NPC buy out for the meager price of one fate point and retain their full faculty for the duration of the scene.
But if they buy out, the PC, too, is free to do other things, so all they've really lost is one turn, and cost the enemy an FP...that's a pretty standard turn maneuvering, IMO. They tried, and it didn't work, but did weaken the enemy. Now they can try something else.
-
That's reasonable enough if it works for you...but not how the system is intended to work at all. So of limited utility for people who are using the system as written.
I see Fate Points as a means of player agency primarily. The rulebook even states that antagonists with a fate point pool are out of the ordinary, and particularly dangerous, implying that your average badguy just doesn't get fate points.
But if they buy out, the PC, too, is free to do other things, so all they've really lost is one turn, and cost the enemy an FP...that's a pretty standard turn maneuvering, IMO. They tried, and it didn't work, but did weaken the enemy. Now they can try something else.
Setting up a thaumaturgic ritual to shut someone down is not "one turn." It's potentially several sessions of set up and work, as well as however many turns it takes to cast.
Tell me, if you were a player, and you took the time and effort to set up a ritual to shut down a powerful wizard and give your own team a chance, wouldn't you feel cheated if it succeeded and the GM just goes, "Well, he has a fate point to spend, so it doesn't work. And now he's hitting you all with a Weapon:8 zone attack, roll to dodge."?
-
I see Fate Points as a means of player agency primarily. The rulebook even states that antagonists with a fate point pool are out of the ordinary, and particularly dangerous, implying that your average badguy just doesn't get fate points.
Sure. Thats actually, I believe, how no-name NPC's work per RAW. And the Big Bad having his own Fate Points... just like the PC's... actually lends a lot toward them being significant. He's the guy who has all the same tricks the PC's do. Except that being -7 total Refresh means that any Fate Point he has, he suffered for.
Setting up a thaumaturgic ritual to shut someone down is not "one turn." It's potentially several sessions of set up and work, as well as however many turns it takes to cast.
Tell me, if you were a player, and you took the time and effort to set up a ritual to shut down a powerful wizard and give your own team a chance, wouldn't you feel cheated if it succeeded and the GM just goes, "Well, he has a fate point to spend, so it doesn't work. And now he's hitting you all with a Weapon:8 zone attack, roll to dodge."?
Sure that sucks, but its not like it doesn't work both ways, or he used some super secret 'NPC only' ability or heavens forbid GM Fiat to do it... he did the same thing anyone with Fate can; bought out of a compel. Its still worth the action the PC's took, and its not like no-one told them the bad-guy had that as an option to begin with.
-
So you think it's fair if the PCs spend a significant amount of time setting up the ritual--potentially spending their own resources and fate points--to curb an extremely significant advantage their opponent has on them, and the opponent then spends one fate point to undo all of that hard work, and gets to use all of his power at full capacity for the entire battle?
I have a problem seeing that as anything besides an utter waste of resources on the part of the PCs.
What's the narrative justification for the spell simply failing, despite the PCs spending all their time and effort on making sure it's cast correctly? How is it fair for the PCs to then get stomped because their preparations just went all right out the window?
-
So you think it's fair if the PCs spend a significant amount of time setting up the ritual--potentially spending their own resources and fate points--to curb an extremely significant advantage their opponent has on them, and the opponent then spends one fate point to undo all of that hard work, and gets to use all of his power at full capacity for the entire battle?
I have a problem seeing that as anything besides an utter waste of resources on the part of the PCs.
Ever heard anyone mention eggs and baskets? Throwing everything into one plan that the players knew could fail if the badguy has the same capabilities (Fate points) they do was not a great plan in the first place, IMO. They're probably better off using their knowledge to set scene aspects in place, do research on their foe (assessments), etc, instead of something that they themselves could just dismiss via spending a fate point. If the villain can't do that... he's kindof non-threatening IMO.
What's the narrative justification for the spell simply failing, despite the PCs spending all their time and effort on making sure it's cast correctly? How is it fair for the PCs to then get stomped because their preparations just went all right out the window?
Forensics guys got it wrong, it wasn't his hair; the symbolic link is no good. Or something similar for narrative justification.
I'm just saying, there's a reason in Grave Peril that Harry's lockdown spell against Kravos happens offscreen, before the plot; effortless victory is boring, for the players or otherwise.
-
Ever heard anyone mention eggs and baskets? Throwing everything into one plan that the players knew could fail if the badguy has the same capabilities (Fate points) they do was not a great plan in the first place, IMO. They're probably better off using their knowledge to set scene aspects in place, do research on their foe (assessments), etc, instead of something that they themselves could just dismiss via spending a fate point. If the villain can't do that... he's kindof non-threatening IMO.
Point is, if the players go to the effort of it, and it works, then it should...well, work.
Forensics guys got it wrong, it wasn't his hair; the symbolic link is no good. Or something similar for narrative justification.
I'm just saying, there's a reason in Grave Peril that Harry's lockdown spell against Kravos happens offscreen, before the plot; effortless victory is boring, for the players or otherwise.
Who said effortless? I've said putting the spell together is plenty of time and effort and resources. If the players put in that time and effort and spend the resources, then that victory is the payoff--especially if the villain couldn't be defeated otherwise. Such a spell might very well be an entire scenario's worth of work.
-
Point is, if the players go to the effort of it, and it works, then it should...well, work.
Eh, to me, it did work; you forced the bad guy to spend some of his fixed resources to overcome an obstacle. Depending on the badguy, that's more serious a loss than some consequences. Thats victory... especially if you have a parties worth of Fate points, and he has the one or two he got Conceding out of an earlier conflict, or by accepting a painful compel.
Who said effortless? I've said putting the spell together is plenty of time and effort and resources. If the players put in that time and effort and spend the resources, then that victory is the payoff--especially if the villain couldn't be defeated otherwise. Such a spell might very well be an entire scenario's worth of work.
If the scenario is about putting together a 'bad guy defeating spell', then he shouldn't buy out of it if thats what makes the story work :) Of course, thats kindof harsh if it results in him being helpless as the party stomps him to death afterwards, as he lies there.
Honestly, if it were me, and the plot allowed for this sort of spell to make things work... I think the villain should Concede immediately, somehow. He's already lost if his primary power is sealed, and there's really no reason to run a conflict at that point. So I guess that makes this sort of thing more of a 'Challenge' per the book, and less of a Conflict to begin with, right?
And again, at the end of the day... the players know what Fate can be spent on. Its not like they're doing this all blind, and if they invest in going with the 'Tag for Effect' route, they should consider the possibility that the badguy will do what they would, and simply buy out of it.
-
I'm with Mr Death on this one. If you are planning on removing the binding with a fate point, do it before the players start putting all that work into it. You can still go into the final battle talking big about the ritual that was supposed to shut him down, but you don't have to focus all that effort on something that is virtually worthless. If it does something else than the players wanted, it would still be something else, but nothing is just not worth it, in my eyes.
Taking down the bad guy is no longer due to the direct effort, but the way they put together the spell to limit his power. It is just a different approach, and if you don't like it, tell the players about it when they come up with the idea, not when they finish it.
-
Eh, to me, it did work; you forced the bad guy to spend some of his fixed resources to overcome an obstacle. Depending on the badguy, that's more serious a loss than some consequences. Thats victory... especially if you have a parties worth of Fate points, and he has the one or two he got Conceding out of an earlier conflict, or by accepting a painful compel.
If the aim is to keep the badguy from filleting and barbecuing you with Weapon:8 spells round after round, and he spends one fate point to keep filleting and barbecuing you with Weapon:8 spells rund after round, then it didn't work.
The players are casting this spell with an objective in mind that isn't "make him use one fate point," so to me, if that's the only result then it's a failure. The villain isn't dangerous to them because he has that one fate point, he's dangerous to them because he's a powerful magic user. And being able to cast your full load of spells is pretty much always worth a fate point if the alternative is not being able to cast.
If the scenario is about putting together a 'bad guy defeating spell', then he shouldn't buy out of it if thats what makes the story work :) Of course, thats kindof harsh if it results in him being helpless as the party stomps him to death afterwards, as he lies there.
Honestly, if it were me, and the plot allowed for this sort of spell to make things work... I think the villain should Concede immediately, somehow. He's already lost if his primary power is sealed, and there's really no reason to run a conflict at that point. So I guess that makes this sort of thing more of a 'Challenge' per the book, and less of a Conflict to begin with, right?
Well, presumably a good villain has some other way of defending himself beyond magic (Kravos had his demon and cultists, for instance)--magic just happens to be one of the options that offers the best offense.
Depends on the scenario, of course. I was thinking of it in terms of, "The players are casting this spell to give themselves a fighting chance," like what Ebenezer did to Mavra, and what Harry did to Kravos.
If you're casting the spell as an 'instant win' button, then hell, just make it a straight up attack and take his ass out.
-
So you think it's fair if the PCs spend a significant amount of time setting up the ritual--potentially spending their own resources and fate points--to curb an extremely significant advantage their opponent has on them, and the opponent then spends one fate point to undo all of that hard work, and gets to use all of his power at full capacity for the entire battle?
Wait a minute. This is some pretty major goalpost-moving. In earlier comments, people had suggested 1) an Evocation block, 2) a Thaumaturgy ritual, or 3) a Maneuver to place an aspect, and then a Compel for Effect. 2) is not the same thing as 3), even though you can use rituals to place aspects.
I agree that a simple Maneuver (if successful) could be be negated by the bad guy coughing up a Fate Point on the Compel. But why on earth would any player set up a big ritual in this situation and agree to have the effects modeled as "you placed a single negative aspect on the bad guy"? That is ridiculous, assuming the Complexity was at all proportional to significant effort on the part of the PCs. For a five minute ritual performed while stealthily observing the bad guy before the attack, sure. But for a major ritual with, say, 20 Complexity or more, I'd be looking for one of two things: a declaration by the GM saying "your ritual worked, the bad guy won't be able to spellcast for the next 12 hours," or "congratulations, you've successfully placed the following list of aspects; you may free-tag each aspect once within the next 12 hours in order to negate or counter this bad guy's spellcasting only." If you end up with the list of aspects, you can tag each for effect in combat to shut down spellcasting--costing the bad guy one FP per tag--or using the tags to inhibit his control rolls or whatnot. If you run out of tags, you can start bidding your own FPs to power the aspects further. Unless the bad guy has an unlimited pool of FPs (i.e. the GM is doing it wrong), this should work.
Naturally, in any given game situation, you should use what helps tell the best story. However, Thaumaturgy is a powerful fulcrum that should allow the player to leverage good preparation and planning into a solid advantage he otherwise wouldn't have had. Quick and dirty ritual gives you one Aspect? Sure. Major ritual with research and components? Better give a lot more effect.
-
I never said it was the best solution. I'm just saying that it's cheating the players if they go to all the time and effort to do the spell, and all of that time and effort is undone by the GM spending a relatively minor resource..
-
I never said it was the best solution. I'm just saying that it's cheating the players if they go to all the time and effort to do the spell, and all of that time and effort is undone by the GM spending a relatively minor resource..
Any spell that puts a single Aspect on the villain isn't a lot of time and resources. At all.
-
Any spell that puts a single Aspect on the villain isn't a lot of time and resources. At all.
Now, if the powerful and involved ritual that took a lot of time and resources managed to dump 3 or 4 similar aspects on the BBEG, each to be tagged-for-effect-for-compel to the same end, that'd be different.
At that point, though, a simple high-powered block may be more effective (use the ward rules, place the block on the likely battlegroung - play some cat-and-mouse to get the battle there, if necessary - and include exceptions in the ward such that only yourself and your allies will remain unimpeded).
-
Any spell that puts a single Aspect on the villain isn't a lot of time and resources. At all.
So the 30-ish shift Entropy Curse example is simple and easy to cast, then?
-
So the 30-ish shift Entropy Curse example is simple and easy to cast, then?
Uh...the 30 shift example is built as an attack spell and just kills someone. Any use of Aspects is incidental to this effect.
-
Uh...the 30 shift example is built as an attack spell and just kills someone. Any use of Aspects is incidental to this effect.
Nope.
Complexity: Varies, but always high; 26 shifts
in this case
Effect: Target gains the Deadly Luck aspect.
The aspect is compelled at an appropriate
time by springing an accident or other misfortune
on the target—an incident that presents
a challenge equal in shifts to the power of
the spell.
It explicitly works as a compel of an aspect.
-
Nope.
It explicitly works as a compel of an aspect.
Right...but it being an Aspect isn't why it's 26 shifts...it's 26 shifts because it actually kills you and is purchased as such, the Aspect is incidental to the cost and primary function of the spell and is compelled repeatedly until you're dead.
-
No, the aspect is the mechanism. It says right out that it's compelled, and that causes the attack. In which case, if you have a fate point, you're immune unless someone else keeps invoking it against you.
-
Like, say, the caster? Or literally anyone who ever attacks you? Or anyone who makes a Lore Assessment being able to taq it?
My point is that the cost of the spell is based on the fact that it makes a 26 shift attack. The fact that it uses an Aspect to do that is basically immaterial to the original argument, which had to do with normal maneuver spells.
-
And my point was that it's a single aspect spell with a lot of shifts--aka, a lot of time and effort put in by the caster.
-
And my point was that it's a single aspect spell with a lot of shifts--aka, a lot of time and effort put in by the caster.
But that's the thing: It's an attack spell and built as such, so if your players are doing it, they don't have to make it Aspect based at all. No spell to kill someone needs to be. A spell actually built just to inflict a single Aspect will never be that big.
-
But that's the thing: It's an attack spell and built as such, so if your players are doing it, they don't have to make it Aspect based at all. No spell to kill someone needs to be. A spell actually built just to inflict a single Aspect will never be that big.
Right.
So unless I'm missing something, the advantage to the Aspect based spell would be that it can be compelled until either it works, or someone does something to remove it (IE, Shirou jumping in front of Nicodemus' curse), correct? The disadvantage being that it can be dodged/manipulated like an Aspect until then... via Fate points.
An attack, you just have to Defend.
-
Something like that, yeah.
I'm a little skeptical that it's actually got real advantages...but then, you don't have to do it that way.
-
In a case f a single aspect thaum ritual, you can't just spend one FP to buy out of the whole thing. Which is how every post it making it sound. The aspect being placed is not a compel, everything that happens due to the aspect is a compel.
This is a perfect set up for players to get clever. They either force the target to bleed himself try of FP, or accept the compel. Clever players would try to stage a fight to force FP drain, while focusing entirely on defense. Take off, regroup, and him the big bad knowing he has no FP left and can't fight off the aspect from the ritual.
-
But that's the thing: It's an attack spell and built as such, so if your players are doing it, they don't have to make it Aspect based at all. No spell to kill someone needs to be. A spell actually built just to inflict a single Aspect will never be that big.
Remember how I was complaining about the examples in the book a while back?
Nonsense like this is the reason.
-
This is a perfect set up for players to get clever. They either force the target to bleed himself try of FP, or accept the compel. Clever players would try to stage a fight to force FP drain, while focusing entirely on defense. Take off, regroup, and him the big bad knowing he has no FP left and can't fight off the aspect from the ritual.
The example that jumps to mind is the fight in the Aquarium in Small Favor. A ritual that shuts down all casters in the area, represented through an Aspect on all of them, compelled whenever they try to cast?
Harry running out of juice is him spending his last Fate point and being forced to accept the compel. Everyone else is able to buy out of it for longer.
At least, I think that example works. I'm not sure how else I'd model that situation.
-
The problem with that representation being that Harry likely had the highest modified refresh value among those practitioners assembled, and takes a boatload of compels on a regular basis. I just don't feel that it's likely that he would have had the smallest pool of FPs available to him out of that group.
-
Possibly that spell was a massive block against magic use, and Harry pulled a series of maneuvers he tagged for effect during the fight to get around it.
-
Possibly that spell was a massive block against magic use, and Harry pulled a series of maneuvers he tagged for effect during the fight to get around it.
A bunch of navel-gazing ones with Conviction and Discipline, yeah.