Blocking Magic Internally - Help

[UmbraLux]

The mental stress with chi thing only makes sense if you buy into a particular belief. So having it work tells people that that belief is more valid than any other (in-game), on account of being true (in-game).

This is observably false in the Dresdenverse.

Pretty much every myth lacking a White God-figure is out of luck. As is every myth without room for Outsiders. As is every myth where mortal magic as Harry does it is impossible.

False again.  Start with the two you mention - the "White God" and "Outsiders" aren't from the same set of sources.  I don't believe either includes the other.  This is common in Butcher's writing.  He draws inspiration from many different cultural sources, adds his own spin, and combines them.  How else would you get fomor, fae, pagan gods, valkyrie, angels, ghosts, were-creatures, various vampires, and magic of several traditions? 

Completely severing someone from their magic COULD be represented as part of a take-out result.  Or they could keep on fighting in that conflict utilizing other means at their disposal.  Being cut off from their magic would not in itself necessitate them being taken out.  Nor would it necessarily require an Extreme Consequence.  The severity of a Consequence is primarily a question of how long the problem is intended to last, not a matter directly of the severity of the problem.

Taran has a point - whether or not they could continue w/o magic, imposing a lack of magic should require a take out.  Even with a take out, loss of magic may not be an acceptable outcome.  See "Dictating Outcomes" on YS203. 

[Haru]

Maybe let's get away from blocks and attacks. There is a great method to impose a reality on things in this game: fate points.

So I could see a chi blocker make a fists maneuver on a wizard, tag the resulting aspect to justify him blocking the wizards magic, and then paying a fate point to compel the wizards high concept, so he won't be able to use his magic for the scene. I think this is a big enough issue, to have the chi blocker pay a fate point for.

Now the wizard can either accept the compel, or he can buy it off per the standard rules.

You could either justify this method by pointing to the characters high concept, or you can give the chi blocker a stunt that let's him do this. Maybe even give a bonus on placing the maneuver.

[Tedronai]

imposing a lack of magic should require a take out.  Even with a take out, loss of magic may not be an acceptable outcome.  See "Dictating Outcomes" on YS203.

I agree, but I don't see how this contradicts what I was saying.
Yes, mandating a loss of magic should require a taken-out result, and even then, the loss of magic may or may not be an acceptable outcome from any given take-out result.  Mandating a broken limb (or pierced lung, or mild concussion...) also requires a take-out result.  Or it could be taken voluntarily in the form of a Consequence.
My point had more to do with the fact that, if the stated ideal end result of your attack (sever the target's access to their magic) does not itself justify mental stress then your attack should not inflict mental stress.

[sinker]

I think we're getting distracted in the argument fellas. The whole point of this forum (or I guess this thread in particular) is to help the OP to figure out how to do what he (or she) wants to do. What he wants to do is use pressure points (narrative) to hinder spellcasting both using an action in conflict, in a way that can be long lasting.

We have already determined that a block doesn't give the duration required, and that normal stress/consequences are poor at best. What should the OP do?

You know, straight thaumaturgy does allow for assigning specific consequences.

[Richard_Chilton]

Some people call the DV a kitchen sink series because there are so many things from so many different sources.  In the DV, magic works because the caster believes it works.

If the caster thinks he's channeling Chi, then that's how it works with him.  If he thinks he's channeling the force, then that's how it works for him.

That said, the more versatile casters seem to buy into the White Council's "this is how magic works" style, but even someone trained in Western style magic can still find himself consulting with a Loa to discover what the message from Heaven really said then latter party with Fairies (which aren't part of the White God's world view) and meet Old Time Gods.

Richard

[Thrakkesh]

One particularly dirty house-rule that could be applied is sort of turning it into a magical/spiritual 'grapple' for all intents and purposes using a different stat line.  I'm going to throw down my own 2 cents though and say long term (anything longer than a scene) is no.  That's not only a powerful enough effect that you'd get way too noticed. (Think of a Warden with that ability--or a Fae, or pretty much anything that has to shut down Wizards), but it's so powerful it sort of creeps into upsetting balance of power.  Not sure I like that much. Generally speaking the only thing that seems to get between a Wizard and his power is himself, and I'd be wary of changing that. Aspect tagging would work, I guess--but talk about a nasty aspect.  I'd at least require a lot of shifts to make that last (Enough shifts to safely cancel out all spellcasting attempts + duration + overcoming his resistance to the effect in the first place). *Maybe* a Thamaturgy style ability. Narratively you could see it as an elaborate ritual (presumeably he'd be unconscious at the time, which would put a fun time constraint on it).  Quick and dirty evocation though would be just no. That's the downside of using Evo anyway.

[Taran]

I have to agree with Haru that a maneuver is the best method for cutting off a wizards magic, assuming you want to last one scene.  It doesn't even have to completely prevent the wizard from casting;  it could force them to use less powerful spells to represent that their magic is weakened.  It gives lots of options that make the flavour of "chi blocking"(or whatever fluff you prefer) better.  I like the maneuver as well, because the wizard could try using an action to remove the maneuver. Discipline to "centre himself"  or whatever fits the bill.

As far as mental damage goes, I just want to point out the excerpt on extreme consequences. 
Please Note that I'm no longer arguring for a mental attack(in this post, at least).  More that I'm pointing out that there could be an attack that targets a wizards magic and forces a take out AND an extreme consequence that could result in a character changing their High Concept:

YS. Pg 205
"Your high concept cannot be changed as a
result of an extreme consequence, unless the
attack in question is deliberately targeting
that aspect. In other words, you can’t change
Wizard of the White Council unless the
attack is specifically trying to permanently strip
you of magical ability.

So if you were to allow an attack that targeted magic which, personally, I don't see as anything But mental, you could permanently or semi-permanently destroy a wizards ability to cast.

You'll also note that it says, "deliberately targeting that aspect".  Which goes back to my previous point where I suggested using an assessment to discover that aspect and needing to tag it in order for such an attack to be useful.  Also, that because a failure to discover that aspect (either because of a failed assessment or because the aspect doesn't exist in the first place), the attacker would be unable to cast that spell.

[Taran]

Allow me to provide you the following hypothetical narrative:
Your spell is entirely, fully, ideally effective.  It completely severs the target practitioner's access to their magic.  But they realize what's going on.  They see your workings, and understand them, and so are not struck with doubt and fear.  They know their magic will return, and how to make this come about.
In the meantime, how is your successful spell represented in this practitioner who is not fazed by the changes?

Let me take what you've said and re-frame it:

Your whit court Incite Lust power is entirely, fully, ideally effective.  But the Target practitioner realizes what's going on.  They see your workings, and understand them, and so are not struck with lust and desire.  They know the emotion will pass, and how to make this come about.
In the meantime, how is your successful power represented in this practitioner who is not fazed by the changes?

My point being, you've described an attack and the person should take consequences based on that attack.  If they only take stress and no consequences, the attack is still successful.  Some people have suggested the Jade Court be magic eating vamps.  How would you make their incite work.  It seems to me the easiest thing would be for them to do mental attacks that have long term consequences based on "losing magic" as they eat your source of power.

[Taran]

If you want a longer lasting effect and you don't have thaumaturgy, then the only solution is consequences. Of course as Tedronai has pointed out, that's a poor solution too.

Why is this a poor solution.  Let's look at incite emotion:


YS P.173
If you can touch someone, you
can make him feel something. You’re able
to do maneuvers at +2 to your roll (using
Intimidation for anger or fear and Deceit for
every other emotion) that force an emotion
on a target (as a temporary aspect), so long
as you’re in the same zone as he is and you
can physically touch him. The victim defends
with his Discipline. You may be able to
prevent the victim from taking other actions
as well if you do this as a block (page 210)
instead of as a maneuver.

Emphasis mine.  So this is exactly what people are suggesting the OP do.  Use maneuvers or blocks

YS p.173
Lasting Emotion [–1]. If you increase the
refresh cost of this ability by 1, you gain the
ability to do Emotion-Touch as a mental attack
instead of a mere maneuver or block. If such
an attack hits, you gain a +2 stress bonus on a
successful hit (as though it were Weapon:2),
increasing the chances of inflicting a mental
consequence (and thus, a more lasting
emotional state). The victim defends with his
Discipline.

But wait!  If the victim chooses the consequence, how does lasting emotion even work??  It works because the attack dictates the type of consequence.  It dictates how the narrative should be carried out, if not the exact consequence.

[sinker]

Indeed, consequences are defined by the attack, however they can also be defined by how one avoids the attack. Using the above example, what if I avoid your lust vamp's attack by thinking about grandma and now I'm "awkwardly disposed to grandma".

As well consequences aren't always defined as physical or mental. Perhaps I have "bitten the tip of my tongue off" as a distraction.

Both of those are consequences that are defined by the attack, but are still not the intent of the vamp.

edit: Something else to consider as well. A consequence can be of the same nature, and still be antithetical to your intent. Consider the above example with two males. There is potential for the target to be "angrily homophobic".

[Tedronai]

Your whit court Incite Lust power is entirely, fully, ideally effective.  But the Target practitioner realizes what's going on.  They see your workings, and understand them, and so are not struck with lust and desire.  They know the emotion will pass, and how to make this come about.
In the meantime, how is your successful power represented in this practitioner who is not fazed by the changes?

The emotion that will pass is lust and/or desire.  For it to pass it must first be present.  Thus it must now be present and this is represented by mental stress and consequences.

My point being, you've described an attack and the person should take consequences based on that attack.  If they only take stress and no consequences, the attack is still successful.

To get back into the physical comparisons, and narrative descriptions of success/failure, I most assuredly disagree.  If the target takes only stress, the attack most likely failed (though in a way that carried a nebulous cost to the target).  The RPG almost certainly did not strike it's target, nor catch them in its blast, nor riddle them with shrapnel.  The 18-wheeler almost certainly failed to so much as clip their trailing ankle as they removed themselves from its path.  The spray of gunfire almost certainly failed to find aerate their soon-to-be-corpse.  And if any of that did happen, it did so in such a way as to have no appreciable effect.  Thus, narratively, the attack most likely failed.

[Taran]

Indeed, consequences are defined by the attack, however they can also be defined by how one avoids the attack. Using the above example, what if I avoid your lust vamp's attack by thinking about grandma and now I'm "awkwardly disposed to grandma".

Then really every attack is useless. I use fire, the creatures catch.  He bumps his head trying to get out of the way, "mild consequence" and since the fire didn't cause the consequence, he heals it up as a suplemental action.

It seems a bit cheap to me.  It also makes WC vamps a bit silly and useless.  THey're trying to inspire an emotion with mental attacks so that they can feed but the players are taking physical consequences "I ram my head into the wall so I don't think about sex".  It just doesn't fly with me.

The emotion that will pass is lust and/or desire.  For it to pass it must first be present.  Thus it must now be present and this is represented by mental stress and consequences.

To get back into the physical comparisons, and narrative descriptions of success/failure, I most assuredly disagree.  If the target takes only stress, the attack most likely failed (though in a way that carried a nebulous cost to the target). 

O.k, I see your point there.  In other words, using an attack that takes up a wizards resources, (stress boxes), isn't really doing much narratively since stress boxes reflect a failed attack.  I see this.  Although, stress boxes also represent the person becoming more fatigued to the point where they can't dodge anymore (use up their stress boxes and take a consequence).  So I can also see where a wizard is becoming more fatigued trying to fend off attacks.

[Tedronai]

Then really every attack is useless. I use fire, the creatures catch.  He bumps his head trying to get out of the way, "mild consequence" and since the fire didn't cause the consequence, he heals it up as a suplemental action.

It seems a bit cheap to me.  It also makes WC vamps a bit silly and useless.  THey're trying to inspire an emotion with mental attacks so that they can feed but the players are taking physical consequences "I ram my head into the wall so I don't think about sex".  It just doesn't fly with me.

Well, the consequences also have to pass a 'reasonableness test' from the table, so if you're playing with a like-minded group, those consequences won't 'fly' in your game.  If the table agrees, though, RAW backs them up.

O.k, I see your point there.  In other words, using an attack that takes up a wizards resources, (stress boxes), isn't really doing much narratively since stress boxes reflect a failed attack.  I see this.  Although, stress boxes also represent the person becoming more fatigued to the point where they can't dodge anymore (use up their stress boxes and take a consequence).  So I can also see where a wizard is becoming more fatigued trying to fend off attacks.

Yes, but 'tired wizard' isn't the goal of your attack.  It's just a convenient byproduct of almost-success that makes future success more likely.

[Taran]

Yes, but 'tired wizard' isn't the goal of your attack.  It's just a convenient byproduct of almost-success that makes future success more likely.

yes, that's what I was saying.

[Sanctaphrax]

This is observably false in the Dresdenverse.

...

False again.  Start with the two you mention - the "White God" and "Outsiders" aren't from the same set of sources.  I don't believe either includes the other.  This is common in Butcher's writing.  He draws inspiration from many different cultural sources, adds his own spin, and combines them.  How else would you get fomor, fae, pagan gods, valkyrie, angels, ghosts, were-creatures, various vampires, and magic of several traditions?

I don't think you're disagreeing with what I was trying to say.

Which is, many (maybe most) systems of mythology just aren't true in the Dresdenverse. Parts of them have been taken and integrated into the setting, but if you try to include their grander elements they end up contradicting established reality.

For example, there are plenty of people who believe that all magic must be either divine or satanic in origin. That mythology almost certainly isn't true in the DV.

And if it turns out that it is in a big plot twist, then the various other mythologies which include other magics are now untrue.

Lots of myths just aren't compatible, period.

Maybe let's get away from blocks and attacks. There is a great method to impose a reality on things in this game: fate points.

So I could see a chi blocker make a fists maneuver on a wizard, tag the resulting aspect to justify him blocking the wizards magic, and then paying a fate point to compel the wizards high concept, so he won't be able to use his magic for the scene. I think this is a big enough issue, to have the chi blocker pay a fate point for.

Now the wizard can either accept the compel, or he can buy it off per the standard rules.

You could either justify this method by pointing to the characters high concept, or you can give the chi blocker a stunt that let's him do this. Maybe even give a bonus on placing the maneuver.

I think that's too much power for a maneuver. Against a dedicated wizard, it's basically an instant fight-ender. A save-or-lose, in D&D terms.

Maybe make it require a stunt, and a big margin of success. Landing a maneuver by a margin of 4 or so might earn you an effect that huge.

Then really every attack is useless. I use fire, the creatures catch.  He bumps his head trying to get out of the way, "mild consequence" and since the fire didn't cause the consequence, he heals it up as a suplemental action.

It seems a bit cheap to me.  It also makes WC vamps a bit silly and useless.  THey're trying to inspire an emotion with mental attacks so that they can feed but the players are taking physical consequences "I ram my head into the wall so I don't think about sex".  It just doesn't fly with me.

Pretty sure that consequences still have to match stress types.

The Catch thing is a genuine issue, though it's easy enough to slap down in actual play. Limitation fixes it, incidentally.

Anyway, if you want to impose narrative authority on somebody else with an attack, you better take them out. If that's unsatisfying, well, there's maneuvers.