Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - babel2uk

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 15
151
DFRPG / Re: A GM's Question of Style
« on: September 14, 2010, 04:44:58 PM »
Well the half an hour figure was pulled out of the air as an example (and not necessarily tied to the warehouse break in specifically). With a my group it can easily take that long to play through a scene, and that's without undue distractions and tangents.

That aside, I wasn't discussing pass/fail mechanics at all, merely pointing out that it will take time for players and GMs new to the system to get used to the way Fate works, and that until they get their head around it you'll regularly get situations where players fall into old habits from the way they're used to playing. It's the GMs job to steer them away from doing so. I stand by my point that I'd come down heavily on someone who used OOC knowledge to dictate IC actions that made no sense - that's in any game, not just Fate. Thankfully  I have a group that's good at separating OOC and IC knowledge, so that sort of thing rarely arises now.

I'm not sure about Wyvern's solution to the warehouse example. It would depend on whether I wanted to put them on a known time limit, whether any of the characters was likely to know what the alarm system looks like, and a whole host of other subjective factors. The part about spending fate points to get extra information reminds me strongly of the Gumshoe system, where you automatically get the important clues that will allow you to solve the mystery (so long as you have the correct skill), but you can spend points to get extra pieces of information that will be relevant - for example the free clues may allow you to find the big bad guy, but the point spend clues might reveal his weaknesses. Though I realise that's not exactly the way Wyvern's example would play out.

152
DFRPG / Re: A GM's Question of Style
« on: September 14, 2010, 03:48:40 PM »
Quote from: WillH on September 14, 2010, 03:31:33 PM
The point is there is no decision to be made by the players based on the outcome of that roll.

I get what you're saying, but others may run such situations differently, and players always expect their rolls to have meaning for them and be relevant to an action they are performing right now. While I have no problem with the idea that once they've made the roll they are going inside (and we rejoin them once they're all through the door) I feel that calling for the actual roll at the point where I think it would be cool for the cops to turn up, is a little like closing the door after the horse has bolted - my players would feel somewhat irritated if I called for a roll half an hour (for example) after the action that it relates to - hell, as a player I would too.

For many groups - players and GMs alike, it's a completely new style of playing - most games treat skill rolls as a direct pass/fail, and many of the people who are coming to this game from other systems will find it difficult to adapt quickly to that change of emphasis from pass/fail to pass/pass with complication, especially in light of how different the system as a whole is to others.

153
DFRPG / Re: A GM's Question of Style
« on: September 14, 2010, 03:00:55 PM »
Quote from: WillH on September 14, 2010, 02:25:43 PM
I think there is some misunderstanding here.

No misunderstanding at all, I was replying specifically to Gilesth's example (and quoting luminos for emphasis) about players potentially refusing to go into a building because they know that they've failed a roll.

154
DFRPG / Re: A GM's Question of Style
« on: September 14, 2010, 02:07:49 PM »
Quote from: luminos on September 14, 2010, 01:49:35 PM
For the warehouse example, if they trip a silent alarm, what plausible reason are they giving for their character not entering the building?  This reaction just seems odd to me.

I have to say I'd come down extremely hard on a player who refused to go into a building they'd broken into because they failed the roll. That's using player knowledge rather than character knowledge. As far as the character's concerned they've succeeded in picking the lock, the door just swung open, there's no rational excuse for not going inside if getting inside was the purpose of the roll in the first place.

155
DFRPG / Re: CCTV surveillance - effects on non-mortal PCs
« on: September 14, 2010, 11:29:14 AM »
Quote from: Jaxom Faux on September 14, 2010, 11:17:56 AM
supernat creatures cause no problem to cameras aside from when they get annoyed and hex.

Supernatural creatures don't generally hex, it's a mortal magic thing, but good points on the rest.

156
DFRPG / Re: Gambling Drunk Warden
« on: September 14, 2010, 08:09:58 AM »
Just some phrase suggestions, that could be used for aspects or rotes:

"Aces and Eights" or "Dead Man's Hand"
"You gotta know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em"
"If irritating me is the jackpot, you got the job done!"
"Let the cards fall where they will"
"Stacked Deck"

157
DFRPG / Re: Block, Counterspell and the like
« on: September 14, 2010, 07:51:36 AM »
Quote from: Wolfwood2 on September 13, 2010, 08:31:39 PM
I think it makes fights between wizards more interesting if they're counterspelling each other.

I'd have thought it actually makes it rather dull. I mean basically what you're going to have visually is two guys stood there yelling at each other (in whatever language they use to cast their spells) with little or nothing of interest really happening (I'd go as far as to say it would make magic mundane - which is a bit of a cardinal sin imho). I'd far rather have my spell casters dodging blasts of lighting, eldrich flames boiling off shields and generally a more action packed scene, it's more interesting to both play and GM.

Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series uses precisely this application of spell casters negating each others spells. The main wizard character actually states at one point that if the gifted are doing their job properly then the army will think they're just stood around doing nothing.

It would (as Becq says) be self limiting as you're only likely to be able to do a small number of counters, but it's likely to be visually deeply dullwhile you do those, and then you have to take consequences or Physical stress to cast your own spells.

158
DFRPG / Re: Block, Counterspell and the like
« on: September 13, 2010, 03:37:27 PM »
Quote from: Njal on September 13, 2010, 02:59:15 PM
(click to show/hide)
.

Fair enough, but
(click to show/hide)

Quote from: Njal on September 13, 2010, 02:59:15 PM
My house rules on the subject are that you are allowed to cast counterspells up to the limit of your Lore if you are aware of the attack (ie it's from a known attacker)  in a round with a penalty of -2 for every counterspell after the first.

If you don't have any skill in the particular element then there is another penalty of -2. You still get to make an assessment as to the power level of the attack with a penalty if you don't know the element. I'm still undecided as to how much stress you inflict with a counterspell but that's my hangup with the system. :)

Not sure from the Counterspell description that you need to be able to manipulate the element in question. It's described as a matter of applying your will to the opponent's spell construct. I'd have thought if you're going to make being able to use the element in question important to the ability to counterspell, there should be some allowance or bonus for using the opposing element to neutralise the energy (using Water against a Fire spell, Earth against an Air spell etc).

Not sure what you're getting at on the stress thing. As far as I recall, the counterspell section doesn't mention stress at all - though I'm inclined to think that the person performing the counter should take stress for channelling the energy as per the normal casting rules. I don't think it inflicts stress on the caster of the original spell (over and above what they've taken in the initial casting). But the section on counterspell is a little hazy and might benefit from some more illustrative examples. Maybe one of the writers could oblige if they're following this discussion?

159
DFRPG / Re: Block, Counterspell and the like
« on: September 13, 2010, 10:17:03 AM »
Quote from: Haru on September 13, 2010, 09:38:18 AM
Can I even counterspell an attack evocation? If for example I wait until the other sorcerer starts his evocation to disrupt it at the same time? Would be useful if in a conflict every group has a wizard, and all they do is cancel each other out. Or better yet: just waiting for the other one to act to cancel him out.
Or are counterspells only to destroy blocks and maneuvers?

Well, you can counterspell Thaumaturgy spells etc. But in my opinion, as far as evocation goes the effect has to be ongoing in your turn to act (rather than react) in order for you to counterspell. It might be possible (though I think it'd be houserule territory) to hold your action with the specific intent of counterspelling, but you'd probably be doing it blind (without the lore roll) and hoping you put enough power in to achieve. My own take on the way Counterspelling works is that the Lore roll not only represents determining the power required, but also the exact way to apply your will to the weak spots in the spell construct, so in my own game I wouldn't allow a counterspell as a defence (reaction) option.

160
DFRPG / Re: An Actual Fullautomacchius
« on: September 12, 2010, 01:34:59 PM »
Quote from: Shecky P. Waldorf on September 12, 2010, 01:01:33 PM
Don't read that one quote in a vacuum, please; look at all the other texts regarding the effects around the Swords. The glow hurts and slows the bad guys - it does not "strip away" their actual abilities any more than having an arc light within an opponent's field of vision actually makes the opponent weaker, it simply makes USING their strength a lot more difficult.

Make sense?

In the context of the way the swords are presented in the game, not really, no.

I'd say the repelling etc is still more in keeping with the Holy power than the All Creatures are Equal. In any case that doesn't change the fact that the way the swords work in the books and they way their powers work in the game are quite different. If we go with the version of the power you're highlighting then All Creatures are Equal should work like a threshold - as a surpressor on all supernatural abilities - rather than in the way it's written up in the book, where it only negates their supernatural defensive abilities and any mundane armour/toughness. It would also seem that the way the power works in the novels is a little inconsistant, if in one encounter it strips away all supernatural trappings and in others it just makes it more difficult for them to be used. Maybe the Knights of the Cross would have been better left as NPCs, or the Swords would have been better left as Plot Device calibre weapons with suggested options for effects rather than statted up as Items of Power.

I think I'll leave this topic alone now. It's becoming less of a fun discussion and more of a nit-picking exercise.

161
DFRPG / Re: An Actual Fullautomacchius
« on: September 12, 2010, 07:54:28 AM »
This discussion is making me lose the will to live, especially when people can't be bothered to read the previous posts!

Quote from: Shecky P. Waldorf on September 12, 2010, 12:43:41 AM
Small Favor does not say this. Bad guys recoil from it like it hurts them and hampers them; it says nothing about stripping away any supernatural abilities.

Quote from: Tsunami on September 11, 2010, 06:20:21 PM
Remember when Harry fights Nicodemus on the Boat at the end of Small Favor? The Sword light up, and

"[...]the sword did for me what it had always done for them—it leveled the field, stripping away all the supernatural trappings and leaving only a struggle of mind versus mind and will versus will, one man against another."

I'm assuming that Tsunami is quoting directly from the book, and that's what my comment was based on.

162
DFRPG / Re: An Actual Fullautomacchius
« on: September 11, 2010, 09:22:41 PM »
Quote from: MijRai on September 11, 2010, 08:42:53 PM
How does that equate with Holy? We've seen Denarians go into churches, no pain there. From the hundreds of Knights and thousands of clergy he has killed, I doubt Holy repels him. The Sword did one thing on Small Favor. It made them equal. Hence, All Creatures Are Equal.

Um, because it repels an attack (rules-wise in an identical way to the description given under Holy Touch of compelling an adversary's high aspect). All Creatures are Equal specifically states that it allows the user to ignore an opponents defences, not remove their attack abilities. Holy might not repel him, but it may well affect his shadow, which is implied to be something else entirely. That's my reasoning anyway. YMMV.

Obviously the wording in the rulebook and the wording in Small Favours clash a little on what the sword does. Personally I think that if you go with the Small Favours version of the power - which strips away and and all supernatural abilities - then the rules massively undercharge for the Swords.

163
DFRPG / Re: An Actual Fullautomacchius
« on: September 11, 2010, 07:50:09 PM »
Quote from: Genhuman on September 11, 2010, 06:21:21 PM
]
(click to show/hide)

I'd have said that's far more in line with 'Holy' than All Creatures are Equal. Let's not forget that Harry has the Soulfire ability as well, which would arguably interact favourably with the Sword's abilities.

164
DFRPG / Re: An Actual Fullautomacchius
« on: September 11, 2010, 06:04:04 PM »
Quote from: MijRai on September 11, 2010, 04:24:35 PM
Well, except for Holy, the powers are ranged. One is +1 to hit when using it from True Aim. That's a Stunt attached to the gun. All Creatures are Equal has no range added to it. In fact, it doesn't even say it has to be the Weapon that does the damage (although it could be implied to be that way). One guy I discussed the Swords with was worried the Knight would use it and then toss and hand grenade at the baddie.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that. The strong implication in the Sword's description is that the sword itself must be used as the weapon in order to take advantage of the All Creatures are Equal - it essentially fulfills any catch on the enemy's toughness powers (along with ignoring mundane defences) - to have it not need to be the weapon that is used against the enemy would be a little like hitting a Faerie with a baseball bat and trying to claim that the bat fulfills the Faerie's catch because you're wearing a cold iron knife in your belt. I'd certainly be wary of giving a player a weapon capable of ignoring armour and any toughness ability from up to 2 zones away. I'd allow the weapon as a -4 refresh, rather than the current -3, simply to take into account the increased range on some of the powers.

165
DFRPG / Re: An Actual Fullautomacchius
« on: September 11, 2010, 07:40:58 AM »
Quote from: MijRai on September 11, 2010, 04:12:24 AM
First, what? I know the rules don't state what the It Is What It Is has to be. I am clarifying that for a Gun of the Cross, it would probably be a gun. You know, common sense. Besides, equipment doesn't have a refresh cost.

As far as I could see the guy was just answering your question... Would it be possible? Yes, if as you say the GM is willing to allow it. It would be an Item of Power so the refresh cost comment is perfectly valid to represent the fact that you can do damage from further away than the Sword of the Cross could.

However, I'd also be a little dubious about just allowing any bullet to be fired with the effects of the sword of the cross. Let me qualify that remark by adding that all I'd be asking for would be a little flavour with the preparation of the bullets - something like they have to be made by the wielder of the gun and the tips of the bullets have to be cooled in holy water, or something similar to sanctify them to a purpose. If you run out of such ammunition during the story then you could still use it as a gun, but you'd need to pistol whip the bad guy to take the full advantage of the 'of the Cross' abilities.

There's actually another model of a magical sword being made into guns, and that's the Saint of Killers from the Preacher comics. Guns that never miss (or hardly ever) and can kill anything (including god) forged from the sword of the angel of death.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 15