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 - Becq

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 81
31
DFRPG / Re: What does Taken Out mean?
« on: July 28, 2012, 12:02:20 AM »
No, it doesn't.  A Joule of heat is a Joule of heat regardless of any outside factors.  A lumen of light emission is a lumen of light emission, regardless of outside factors.  If a witness doesn't know what a Joule of lumen is, that does not change the amount of heat or light.  Nor does precision of instruments change the amount of heat or light, though it will affect the fidelity of measurements made.  But there is a physical truth which is absolute.  These are objective measures.

Your definition of clarity depends heavily on the capacity of the witnesses to understand it.  The same person could give the same communication to different groups without any variation, and his "clarity" measure could easily range from 0% to 100% based solely on the witnesses and their capacity to understand.

I don't care how clearly you explain yourself, you will have 0% clarity on any attempt to explain the basics of folding a towel in half to a group of 1 month old children -- not because you aren't explaining clearly, but because the audience has 0% capacity for understanding the subject matter regardless of the clarity of the explanation.  If your scale is no more precise than rating everything it measures as "ranging from 0% to 100%, depending on the witness", then there's no point in the measurement.

32
DFRPG / Re: What does Taken Out mean?
« on: July 27, 2012, 09:54:50 PM »
By your definition, then, perfect clarity cannot exist.  So what's the point in discussing it?

It would make more sense to define clarity in terms of being able to communicate concepts to those reasonably equipped to understand the concept, but I doubt that the world's most skillful communicator could convey to, say, an infant how to fold a towel in a way that the infant could understand.  Which makes "clarity" a worthless concept.

33
DFRPG / Re: What does Taken Out mean?
« on: July 27, 2012, 09:34:37 PM »
I'm fairly certain that ruling's wrong.
I could be mis-remembering, but I thought that some time back when we had the Pure Human discussion, that someone pulled out an email from Fred that indicated that the threshold for losing Pure Human was spending refresh on powers.  I did not share that opinion, but there it was.
Quote
Bad idea. Don't mess with the Compel system like this, it can only end badly.

A point of Sponsor Debt is a virtual Fate Point. This change would make that not so, rendering them much less point-full.
As I mentioned, I wasn't entirely happy with it either.  The problem was that on the one hand I liked the idea of making sponsored invokes a bit more powerful (basically just tacking on a stunt that allows a particular sort of invoke to grant +3 instead of +2), but on the other hand do so allows Fate laundering (I invoke with sponsored debt to get a +3, then buy off the debt later by spending a Fate point).  So yeah, it's probably a no-go.
Quote
Better, but probably pointlessly clunky and liable to make Compels into good things. Seriously, it's not good to mess with this stuff unless you really know what you're doing.
Compels can only be good things in the hands of a GM who's not trying hard enough.  By definition, its only a proper compel if it causes trouble for the character.
Quote
Personally, I think it's probably best to let people go into FP debt without a Power. It mitigates some systemic problems that show up when people have no FP. Namely, it means that non-taggable Aspects are never totally worthless and it means that Compels are never irresistible.
But it also creates a new problem (or at least what I see as a potential exploit) by way of offering 100% interest-free Fate loans.  Borrow Fate whenever you need it, so long as you buy off the debt with a Fate point when you get one -- no consequences.  Or, better yet, wait to hear what the proposed compel is, then decide whether to take a possibly "easy" compel, or buy it off.

34
DFRPG / Re: How would you set up the zones for a speeding train?
« on: July 27, 2012, 09:14:29 PM »
While the book is far from precise on this subject, it's probably worth noting the following:

1) Inhuman Speed is described on YS178 as follows, my emphasis: "You are very fast, just past the edge of human capability."
2) I am led to believe based on a wiki entry that "The fastest human footspeed on record is 44.72 km/h (27.79 mph), seen during a 100-meter sprint (average speed between the 60th and the 80th meter) by Usain Bolt."

My parsing of this is that statement #1 is comparing an otherwise typical/average character that has acquired Inhuman Speed to the absolute best possible mundane human capability (as described by statement #2).

So, if I was to put numbers on paper, I'd probably say that a character with Average Athletics (+1) and Inhuman Speed can expect to reach about 30mph -- assuming a short sprint, average success, and no aspects invoked.  A more athletic character with Inhuman Speed and with more of an investment in moving as fast as possible (running a race, running from something that wants to eat him) would be noticably faster.

Based on this, I would say that a character with Inhuman Speed might be able to keep up with that 40mph train if he had a significant investment in speed-related stunts, athletics, etc, and rolled well.  Maybe.  A character with Superhuman Speed ought to be able to catch up to the train fairly easily.

The RAW for Mythic Speed indicates that it allows a character with no other prerequisites to "simply declare that you have no problem keeping up with a moving vehicle".  Another vague statement; this could be rules-lawyered to mean that a character with Mythic Speed could casually keep up with, say, a spacecraft -- which is technically a moving vehicle.  For the sake of sanity, I'm going to assume that they meant something much more mundane -- say, a car moving at freeway speeds (70mph).  And again, I'm going to assume that practically any character with Mythic Speed can achieve this, regardless of other abilities.

So here's a chart to play with, completely abitrarily recorded by me based on the above:

average human (sustained/sprint): 6mph/10mph
optimal human (sustained/sprint): 19mph/28mph
Inhuman Speed* (sustained/sprint): 20mph/30mph
Supernatural Speed* (sustained/sprint): 40mph/60mph
Mythic Speed* (sustained/sprint): 70mph/100mph?

(*) baseline for otherwise average human capabilities

Feel free to disagree!

35
DFRPG / Re: What does Taken Out mean?
« on: July 26, 2012, 10:09:05 PM »
I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable making it -0; there is a small advantage to being able to take out Fate loans, and the current ruling appears to be that -0 powers do not cancel out the pure mortal bonus.  On the other hand, I'm not sure that is worth -1, either.

I'm thinking that it would be best to package it with another small benefit such that a -1 package cost would be fitting.  One possibility is to grant an additional +1 when invoking an aspect via debt.  (To prevent debt laundering, this should probably be coupled with a cost of two Fate points to buy off the resulting debt compel.)  Another possibility is to grant bonuses to actions taken to pay off a debt compel.  I'm uncertain about the benefit/cost balance on either/both options.

36
DFRPG / Re: What does Taken Out mean?
« on: July 26, 2012, 02:52:06 AM »
Or it could be that the writer is fond of ironic understatement.

For example, if I said "Being shot in the head is generally a bad thing", you could argue that "generally" doesn't mean the same thing as "always", and that in fact my statement implies that quite often being shot in the head might well be a good thing (or at least a non-bad thing).  Logically, you would be correct.  But I still advise against shooting yourself in the head.

Similarly, the writer might have figured that the fact that it was very specifically described as a demonic co-pilot would be enough to convey to the reasonable reader that there was little expectation (more understatement, there!) of a warm and fuzzy, rainbow-colored, Lawful Good demonic co-pilot that really just wants to help you in any way that would make you feel good about yourself.

37
DFRPG / Re: What does Taken Out mean?
« on: July 25, 2012, 02:03:07 AM »
The bit about the demon's agenda is at least as clear as the agendas for sponsored magic ... for what that's worth.  In the power text, it states "The GM should think about what the co-pilot’s agenda is." and that the copilot is "Usually an evil, angry one".  I parse this as basically the GM is directed to screw with the player.

But if the evil, angry spirit is co-piloting an evil, angry NPC ... what then?  It's not as though the hexen-FBI were fighting the belts' influence all that hard...

38
DFRPG / Re: What does Taken Out mean?
« on: July 24, 2012, 01:03:16 AM »
Not in my experience.

As an NPC power, I've found Demonic Co-Pilot to be a bunch of pointless dice-rolling.
Why would you need to roll dice if the host simply accepts takedown with the first mental attack, letting the co-pilot take the wheel for the duration of the conflict?  Boom: no stress, no consequences, no rolling ... so long as the host and co-pilot have symbiotic goals.

39
DFRPG / Re: What does Taken Out mean?
« on: July 21, 2012, 03:58:16 AM »
Hm.

For something like a Hexenwolf, that would make the "disadvantage" part of the power basically meaningless:

Demon: You must kill them!  Kill them all!  Eat their entrails!  <inflicts X mental stress>
Hexenwolf: Actually, I'm cool with that.  It was kinda my plan anyway...  Have at 'em, just top off the tank when your done!  <accepts the takeout, or conceeds, as appropriate>
Demon: Yay!  <kills a lot>

For players, it means that either the player wants what the demon wants (in which case the GM gets to play the character during fights, which is silly) or the character struggles against the demon, in which case you have the very poorly designed power that we had been discussing in the other thread.

So if you accept that it is an NPC power, it seems fine.  As a PC power, it's crap.

40
DFRPG / Re: Running with the devil
« on: July 20, 2012, 06:40:45 PM »
It doesn't? Constant mental attacks, quickly ramping up to Taken Outs and Extreme Consequences that change the person into some kind of blood thirsty beast sounds pretty much exactly like what the FBI guys went through in Fool Moon.

Remember, after using the belts for only a few days before the book starts, three of them were outright addicted to it and the fourth had to hide the belts to keep them from indulging.
The problem is that after using the belt for a short time, all someone would need to do is poke them and they'd keel over, having no consequences left to sacrifice.  I still hold that a Sponsor Debt-style system would be more fun, more playable, more balanced, and better reflecting the "reality", so to speak.

41
DFRPG / Re: multi-form wereform
« on: July 20, 2012, 04:03:54 AM »
I'm fairly sure that Sanctaphrax had a Swarm power and a Dual Form power somewhere in his custom power thread.  I think the Dual Form power may have been a limited version of Modular Abilities (ie, you get two specific power layouts at a reduced overhead cost of -1).

Something to consider, though, is that for a human to be able to change into a single fixed alternate form is considered fairly traumatic per the flavor text.  Turning into a horde of spiderlings seems likely to lead to something along the lines of
Quote from: YS174
the stress and strain placed on the sense of self inevitably leads to a psychotic break of some sort
.  Which could in inself make for an interesting (though at best eccentric and more likely flat-out insane) character.

42
DFRPG / Re: Running with the devil
« on: July 20, 2012, 03:28:06 AM »
Actually, I think I have to agree with Tedronai on this one; that does seem to be how the power is written.  Almost every other power I looked at is careful to specify that it grants an "ability" or that the character "may", but a couple of powers seem to deliberately not make themselves optional.  Spirit Form and Hulking Size are two others.  Of course, they can potentially be toggled on/off via (for example) a Shapeshifting Power.  As can Demonic Copilot -- but when in your "powered" form, you get the benefits and penalties of the Demonic Copilot when the conditions apply, like it or no.

Which makes the power even worse than I thought it was.

Then again, any time this is a disadvantage, you could argue a self-compel, also per the RAW.

43
DFRPG / Re: Automatic Hexing
« on: July 19, 2012, 09:04:24 PM »
I'll spoiler this too, then:

(click to show/hide)

At least, that's the way I'd look at it, YMMV.

44
Er ... Sponsored Magic is channeling + ritual, not evocation + thaumaturgy.  So they get the equivalent of one element and one theme, with no additional specializations (other than what their sponsored magic grants them) unless thay also buy evocation and/or thaumaturgy.

45
DFRPG / Re: Automatic Hexing
« on: July 19, 2012, 08:13:50 PM »
The rules are vague, yes.  But basically, accidental hexing is just a special case of compel specific to spellcasters (it's a compel against the character's spellcasting high concept), and in general you should treat it the same way you treat other compels.  That is, if there is a situation in which you think a compel against an aspect is appropriate, adds something to the story, and causes the character some meaningful difficulty, then offer the compel -- then the player can either accept or buy it off.

So I don't think any of the above is actually what you are asking for, but I think it applies, and I'll tie it in as follows.  Imagine you had a character with the aspect Two left feet (because he's clumsy and trips a lot), but he likes to run marathons.  Next, add that he's the mayor of the town, so he's on the local media's radar.  How often would you offer compels?  You're not going to start off every game session by telling him he tripped last weekend and his nose is still sore and toss him a Fate point.  That would get boring.  But if there's a big important marathon where he's raising awareness for breast cancer research and it's really important and the cameras are on him...

Same thing for your wizard.  If he's a wizard, technology hates him.  If he's a minor practitioner, it's probably not so bad.  But either way, the character shouldn't be hammered constantly, because that would get boring quickly.  One thing you could do in the situation (since the character is high profile) is to think about the problem more in terms of reputation.  Stuff is failing around him continuously, so folk are going to start calling him "Murphy" (as in Murphy's Laws, not as in the Harry's friend).  The news crews are going to be making jokes about what's going to blow up next.  He's going to have lawsuits pending.  Etc.

Bottom line: I'm not sure what you mean by "is likely expected to deal with technology", but you might want to rethink mixing a wizard with anything technological.  If Steve Jobs had been a wizard, nobody would have ever even heard of Apple.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 81