Sample Combat

[JesterOC]

We just need to get Lenny in here and grill him for 5 days and we would be fine.

[eberg]

Uhm ... then why this line from that section on page 253?:

"As with other effects, you can pay an additional shift to make the effect persistent at the cost of 1 shift per additional *exchange*"

Me thinks a new sticky thread with Errata and an FAQ should rear it's head soon

It occurred to me, pondering this the other day, that maybe it has to do with whether the aspect is caused by an instantaneous effect or an ongoing one. If you call up a magical windstorm that puts the aspect HIGH WINDS on the scene, you need to give it power to keep it going or it ends. If, however, you use a flash of light to temporarily blind someone, it will work like any other combat maneuver and be sticky if you get one or more shifts. Does that make sense to folks?

[fabulator]

So what you mean there is that if you create an aspect that covers the whole zone (High Winds) you've got to apply shifts of power to keep it going but if you create an aspect that just hits one person (or a few) then if you apply an extra shift of power it becomes sticky. Is that it?


Also, in regards to all the discussion on Law-breaking, the original act in question was a 'direct mental attack' that (I believe) was aiming for unconsciousness. Now, to my eye, that doesn't automatically violate any laws but as a DM I would definitely be asking the player for more description.  A spell that seeks to overload the target's sense with false and/or contradictory info and thereby produce confusion would be a mental attack but most likely that would be a maneuver to apply an aspect.  A spell that plays upon a target's fears and tries to call up his worst nightmares; that's a direct mental attack that could definitely cause some stress damage. It's also a grey area for the Third Law at the very least.  I think the major issue becomes if the subject is impressing his or her own fears onto a sort of 'fear-template' provided by magic that's not Lawbreaking; the caster has not invaded the subject's mind or thoughts. However, if the caster actually reaches into someone's mind to find their fear of clowns and then uses that to drive the person insane, that's Lawbreaking. Someone brought up the fact that mental stress/consequences usually involve things like The Bogeyman is Real or somesuch and I don't think that kind of thing is grounds for Lawbreaking. If the caster applies an aspect to a target, the caster is responsible for that aspect and the nature of its application. If the target applies the aspect themselves (they chose to do so instead of taking stress hits) then the target is responsible for the nature of the aspect.

[eberg]

So what you mean there is that if you create an aspect that covers the whole zone (High Winds) you've got to apply shifts of power to keep it going but if you create an aspect that just hits one person (or a few) then if you apply an extra shift of power it becomes sticky. Is that it?

No no, it is a matter of whether there is some magical creation causing the aspect or if the aspect is a side-effect of something that happened instantaneously and is done. To use the blindness example, if I use the instant flash of bright light to make you blind, it is fragile if I get no shifts and sticky if I do. If I wrap your head in magical shadow, though, you will only be blind until the magical shadow goes away, so I need to put power into making it last for as many exchanges as I want it to stick around. Is that more clear?

Also, in regards to all the discussion on Law-breaking, the original act in question was a 'direct mental attack' that (I believe) was aiming for unconsciousness. Now, to my eye, that doesn't automatically violate any laws but as a DM I would definitely be asking the player for more description.

Reading the laws closely we have:

The Third Law: No mind-reading.
The Fourth Law: No mind-controlling.

To my reading, nothing here prohibits mental attacks, provided you aren't (as fabulator points out) dredging up deep-seated fears out of their sub-conscious or otherwise turning their mind against them. What I envisioned happening in the sample combat was a blast of raw mental energy to knock him out. Basically punching him in the mind.

[AlexFallad]

Exchange 2

    * Igor, alarmed by the injury of his master, leaps at Barry. He rolls Fists (+4) and gets a +3, so his effort is +7. Barry rolls Athletics (+1) to get out of the way and gets an unfortunately -1, for 0 effort. Luckily, his protective amulet offers a Superb (+5) defense, put it only has one use per session, so its discharged. The effect is then +2 (+7 attack minus +5 defense) but it adds the ghouls Weapon:4 claws, so it is still a 6-stress hit. Barry decides, rather than being Taken Out (since the ghoul will almost certainly just kill him), he'll use his Severe Consequence (Gutted) to soak it.

Quick question:  Could Igor also attempted a Declaration here?  Maybe something like Fists vs. Fists that Barry is "Not Used To Putting Up His Dukes" or Fists vs. Athletics "Backpedals In Panic" ?

[eberg]

Quick question:  Could Igor also attempted a Declaration here?  Maybe something like Fists vs. Fists that Barry is "Not Used To Putting Up His Dukes" or Fists vs. Athletics "Backpedals In Panic" ?

No, because Barry is a PC with established Aspects. Declarations are generally for NPCs and such that aren't fully statted out.

[AlexFallad]

No, because Barry is a PC with established Aspects. Declarations are generally for NPCs and such that aren't fully statted out.

I'm not convinced that an established PC is exempt from Declarations, especially if the Ghoul above was replaced with a Martial Artist (as in Fists w/ Martial Artist stunt).  The whole point of Declarations is to create aspects.  Aspects created via Declaration seem to me to be just as valid as other Aspects that are "created" temporarily on established PCs through game mechanics.

[devonapple]

Aspects created via Declaration seem to me to be just as valid as other Aspects that are "created" temporarily on established PCs through game mechanics.

Just as valid, yes. Just as temporary, no. Declarations are assumed to be permanent facts, have always been facts, but have only just now come into focus.

YS 116:
"As with assessments, aspects created with declarations don’t go away after being tagged, so long as circumstances make it reasonable that they hang around. This does mean that occasionally assessments and declarations can backfire on the character establishing them (other characters might use the same aspect, or the GM might bring that aspect back around to complicate the character’s endeavors)."

But that's not the point - the point is: should PCs get Declarations made about them. I think not, but your game may thrive with the option. Especially if your GM doesn't limit characters to only 7 Aspects.

Edit: But oh, heaven help you if your GM's NPCs are fond of making Declarations like "Wall-Eyed," "Skips When Running," "Shoots like a Stormtrooper," or "Broke-Broke."

[Daeglan]

Can you use force to throw the ghoul at Voldemort?

[AlexFallad]

Well, diving into playing and running has forced me to plow through YS in depth.

1) Page 192, Non-Conflict Actions section clearly states that Declarations can create aspects for an NPC or another PC.
2) Page 98, lasts para before "Using Aspects".  "You will also encounter temporary aspects during the course of play. [Examples follow] Typically, you use your skills to create or discover these aspects during play (see page 113 for more information)."

Page 113 starts a major heading topic called 'Creating And Discovering Aspects In Play' and includes all the information from 113 through 116, and Declarations is in this section.

Clearly Declaration Aspects are temporary.  The text on YS 114 'Temporary Aspects' states that "temporary" has different durations, but certainly not permanent or even worth recording on the char sheet.

3) Incidentally, what skill would you use to Declare someone "Shoots Like a Stormtrooper"?  The Gun Knowledge Trapping on YS 131 seems to indicate knowledge about the guns and ammo ITEMS, not the skill/ability of the shooter.  I can see a Declaration "Using Hollow Points" on an opponent to reduce the effectiveness of their Guns attack and you are wearing decent kevlar armor, but that is a huge difference from the Martial Artist's stunt ability to declare/assess styles.

[citadel97501]

Well I am a little unsure on this, but isn't there an example of an enemy using a Declaration in Blood Rites?

(click to show/hide)

Mavra, claimed that his shield wouldn't defend him from heat, and tried to use flamethrowers?

[AlexFallad]

Well I am a little unsure on this, but isn't there an example of an enemy using a Declaration in Blood Rites?

(click to show/hide)

Mavra, claimed that his shield wouldn't defend him from heat, and tried to use flamethrowers?

Well, I've become a devotee of the Fate system for my rp needs, but I'm pretty ignorant (not completely though) of the Dresdenverse.  If the "him" you refer to above is Harry, I would guess Harry is certainly a PC.  The example you give above would probably be a Declaration stemming from her Lore...not really sure if I'd buy it as a Guns Declaration since I see from reading the Gun Knowledge trapping as covering things a char knows about their gun and ammo and not that

(click to show/hide)

shield doesn't protect from heat

.

[batmanjr]

I have a different rule question in the write up  VERY helpful BTW.

In the combat Dave offered up an aspect he put on the Ghoul to Barry as a free tag.

I thought only the person who created the aspect could tag it for free?  This came up in a sample combat we had so I'm curious if there is something I missed.

[devonapple]

I thought only the person who created the aspect could tag it for free?  This came up in a sample combat we had so I'm curious if there is something I missed.

It is legitimate. This is why teamwork is so essential in this game: players can set up to their companions for a more decisive impact.

While flunkies can't pass along free tags to their villain bosses, they can pass along knowledge of an Aspect, which can be activated with a Fate Point per normal.

[batmanjr]

Thanks again DA.

Any chance that can be backed up with a rule?  I only ask because if it gets brought up again I'd like to be able to show it to them in writing somewhere.  And as much as I'd like to say your post IS writing, I can't really refer to it as law.