We were all waiting to see what he'd do.  The player looked at the fate point, and says "I take her into my arms and kiss her, tenderly."  And then he takes the fate chip and says "Nothing happens".

I cut to Diane sitting in a mental hospital, quietly watching a blank television screen. Her eyes are blank, empty. 

Such wonderful, terrible sadness.

Moments like these are what remind me why I roleplay. Kudos to your player, and to you for running the game.

I don't see why social attacks could not be performed in combat.

Like... deceit roll against a powerful enemy while taking cover, "You'd better leave fast if you want to live.  I have about 20 people coming on the way right now!"

Definitely seems appropriate to me.

On the contrary, I don't see why social attacks need to be included in physical combat. It seems like an unnecessary complication.

I would treat that Deceit roll as a maneuver to place the aspect "He's Got Backup Coming?!" on the enemy. The aspect could then be tagged or invoked as normal, either for the normal +2 or as a compel to get the enemy to retreat (and getting the enemy to withdraw seems like the objective of such a tactic in the first place). That seems simpler and more elegant than dealing with the social stress track.

The book also seems to imply that social combat is an entirely different beast in a way that mental combat isn't. Social combat has its own method of determining initiative (Empathy, rather than Alertness), and there are no powers that deal social stress in the way that Incite Emotion deals mental stress. It seems like aside from those rare, exclusively mental conflicts that happen every so often, mental attacks/stress are a subset of physical combat, while social combat is a different method of conflict resolution.

Plus, if an enemy could be Taken Out of a physical combat by dealing social stress, you could create a character who wins firefights just by hurling insults, which doesn't seem to make any sense. Working an enemy into a blind, frothing rage is a time-honored way of setting them up for the killing blow, but this can be accomplished by stacking maneuvers with social skills and tagging them all for a physical attack. Dealing social stress just doesn't seem appropriate in a physical combat situation.

Edit: UmbraLux makes good points too. Social combat seems to take place at a different speed than physical combat.

Hmmmm....

So if this is the case, it seems to me that inhuman recovery should affect mental, social, and physical consequences.

Otherwise, it's fairly expensively priced. No?

I wholeheartedly disagree that recovery is expensively priced as-is. It doesn't affect mental or social consequences, but physical consequences are by far the most common consequence suffered in a combat situation, so recovery fulfills its job of bouncing you back after a fight quite nicely. Also, don't forget the benefits of the Tireless stunt equivalent, plus the ability to clear a mild physical consequence once per scene (which is more valuable than it would be if everyone had nine to start).

Plus, it just plain wouldn't make sense for a creature's fast healing to affect its damaged reputation.

Uhhh...

This is not correct.

Each stress track /does/ have an exclusive consequence set.

It makes no sense to take "broken ribs" as a consequence to social conflict.

Believe me, this took me a little while to puzzle through, because the book isn't very explicit about it. Each character has only one set of mild, moderate and severe consequences. Each slot can be filled by a physical, mental or social consequence, as determined by whatever's dealing you stress at the time you take the consequence. This doesn't mean that you can take the consequence "broken ribs" in a social conflict, it means that if you take the moderate physical consequence of "broken ribs" in a fight and subsequently enter a social conflict, you can't take a moderate social consequence of "severely flustered" because your moderate consequence is already filled by the physical consequence you took earlier.

"Each character may take one [consequence] of each severity ... once the consequence slot is used, it cannot be used again until the current consequence is removed"

Doesn't say anything about types of consequence or one per stress track, just one consequence at each severity.

Also, if you take a look at the character sheet, you'll notice that it contains only one slot for each level of consequence, and that each is marked as "any" in the P/M/S column. If every character had nine consequences (three per stress track) to start, they would have included space to fill all those consequences. Instead, they have only a few blank lines in case you gain additional mild consequences through stunts or high skills.

This interpretation seems to make the most sense based on the rules, but there's always the possibility I'm dead wrong on this. Can anyone else shed some light on this?

Sounds like you're feeling pretty overwhelmed. GMing for the first time is hard enough, especially with a system you don't have any experience with. However, I think you can breathe easy for the moment, because you're starting in a good place with a published adventure and enough material for one session at least, and that's all you really need. Here's my advice:

- My number one suggestion if you're starting out is to do a test run before you begin your game. Run a one-shot or a short mini-campaign to familiarize yourself and your players with the rules. It sounds like you're already committed to starting with Neutral Grounds, so this can serve as your dry run for playing the "real" campaign. Honestly, I'd suggest making the first adventure entirely separate from your main campaign, so both you and the players can fumble around with the system without feeling like you're screwing things up for down the road. It's hard enough to GM without putting the pressure of "this needs to make sense with later plot" on yourself. Even if your players use the same characters they're using for the main campaign, having that first adventure be 'off the record' or 'non-canon' gives everyone a no-risk environment to explore their characters and the system.

- My second suggestion would be to prepare just what you need for the first session (whether or not you decide to use it as a test run), and let that session guide you forward. One of the beautiful things about the DFRPG is how easily all parts of it can change to fit your campaign and PCs. Sounds like you've got some cool ideas for epic plot later on (Vampire Ninja Assassins sound quite promising), but I would definitely hold off on introducing your big plotline until you and your players have your Feet in the Water, so to speak. Try using small-scale player- and NPC-driven conflicts to start off, then introduce the main plot once your players have felt their characters out.

- With regard to aspects, don't worry too much about how they are now. Once again, if it's everyone's first time around with the DFRPG, don't expect every aspect to be pants-rendingly gorgeous. You can use the flexibility of the system to your advantage here - aspects can change quite often (at a minor milestone, usually after every session), and the book actually suggests (I think) letting people change aspects and skills mid-session during the first session, as they begin to get a feel for their characters. So if/when something comes up and somebody gets or gives a good idea for an aspect, let the player change it immediately. Be on the lookout for aspects that can be both positive and negative, those are the best kind. If somebody cracks an in-character joke or one-liner that strikes you as characterful, suggest that the one-liner become an aspect. And as GM, pay the most attention via compels to the character aspects that really sizzle for you, and don't worry too much about engaging with the ones that seem to fall flat. The positive reinforcement you give to the good aspects will help teach the players what a good aspect entails, and will motivate them to change those bland aspects to more evocative ones as they (like you) learn the ropes.

That's all my non-mechanics advice, there are plenty of more experienced posters here who can explain the nuts and bolts of blocks, maneuvers and other such things much better than I

I'm not sure if I'd put themes and threats in the category of meta-plots. They don't feel quite "big" enough to encompass a World-Shaking Prophecy of Doom^TM. I think they're smaller-scale on purpose, because DFRPG seems to encourage more organic, character- and NPC-driven stories. To take some examples from the books, I think Marcone and the Raiths would be examples of threats in Harry's setting of Chicago. They show up fairly often, and feature quite prominently in a few casefiles, but they aren't truly meta-plotty in the way that the is (I'm new to the forums, do I need to spoiler-tag that?)

As a side-note, a separate "catch" that applies only to recovery or toughness is perfectly legal... as long as it's not refunding any refresh, and isn't the sole catch.

So, for example, if you have someone with, say, Supernatural Toughness & Recovery, who can be hurt or killed via necromantic magics (a +1 to +3 catch depending on how easy it is to figure out), you could also declare that they could be killed by decapitation (i.e. that functions as a catch only for recovery) - you just wouldn't receive any additional refresh for that.

That's a good point, I hadn't thought of that. There doesn't seem to be any harm in specifying an "extra" Catch for one or the other of Recovery or Toughness (power), as long as there's a single Catch for both to satisfy the power's requirement and the second one isn't giving refresh. So from my earlier silver/holy stuff example, I couldn't assign one Catch to each power, but I could set "silver" as the Catch for both, satisfying the requirement, and then tack on "holy stuff" as a Catch to Toughness only.

Well, when you consider that they hail from a future where there are space stations that can blow up planets, I don't think it's too bad.

It's also a melee weapon - not ranged.

Plus, the fact that a weapon of that power in /this/ world would be a big deal could be a huge plot hook too.  Everyone would want to get their hands on it.


But consider, a ghoul has a weapon:6 with strength and claws.  A Jedi (depending on race) would probably not have any kind of strength powers.  That means a lightsaber would be about the same weapon rating as a ghoul without weapons.

When put that way, it actually almost seems a bit weak!

Additionally, a Jedi doesn't stop being a Jedi without a lightsaber.

This is another reason I think the Lightsaber should be equipment rather than anything that causes refresh.

Seconded on the points well made. However, I think that comparing a lightsaber to a ghoul with Strength and Claws isn't a fair comparison, because the ghoul has spent 5 refresh to get to the point where his claws are Weapon:6, while the Jedi gets a Weapon:6 lightsaber free of charge and can spend that same 5 refresh on, say, Inhuman Speed and Evocation, putting him way ahead of the ghoul in terms of power, even considering the ghoul's grappling and lifting/breaking bonuses. It may not be overpowered in a future with giant lasers, but we're talking about lightsabers in the Dresdenverse here. I agree that it shouldn't cost refresh ala an IoP, but I don't think it should be free equipment.

I think that paying for lightsabers with focus item slots is the ideal solution, because Jedi are going to have those spellcasting powers anyways to represent the Force, and the fluff doesn't really support Jedi using focus items the way Dresdenverse wizards do. So what to do with those unused focus slots? Substitute a build-your-own lightsaber system! Start it at Weapon:3 (well within the normal range for free equipment), and let the Jedi spend focus slots to improve the Weapon rating by +1 each (or some sort of scaling system, whatever's balanced). Maybe allow alternatives like +1 to weapon skill for one defense each round.

This would mean that lightsabers would be pretty firmly tied to the Jedi template, which fits the fluff that only Jedi have the mind-body awareness needed to truly utilize a lightsaber's potential without cutting an arm off. It would also tie each individual Jedi to his lightsaber, which also fits the fluff.

Now I'm tempted to actually come up with a Jedi template. Hmmmm ...