Newbies ask the darnest things

[Tedronai]

1) Can supplemental actions follow the main action? Example: can I roll my Fists at -1 to attack, then move to an adjacent zone without rolling?

So long as the penalty is included in the full action, I know of nothing preventing it from being followed by a supplemental action.

2) Can counterspells and... let's call them spell-prolonging spells be rote spells? Rote counterspells probably don't make much sense, but I'm curious anyway.

My own personal opinions:
Counterspells I personally would flatly allow.
'Spell-prolonging spells' I would allow with the caveat that they would be specific to the prolongation of a single specific spell (though I would not necessarily define that spell to rote requirements).

3) Can sponsored Thaumaturgy spells (with Evocation's methods and speed) be rote spells?

This depends heavily on your group's definition of "evocation's methods".  Such issues have previously been the topic of heated debate on these boards, from which a consensus was not achieved.

4) Do you consider acceptable making a stunt that gives a skill trapping a +3 while restricting its use? Example: would you allow  a stunt that reads "you get a +3 to Craftsmanship when building weapons (or possibly even just melee weapons)"?

More restricted stunts yield greater bonuses.
Whether a particular circumstance is sufficiently restricting to warrant a particular bonus is often a matter of personal judgement.
For the example in question, I would allow the parenthetical version.

[Taran]

I'm not sure what you mean here, but I don't see a reason why they can't.

Counterspells work by basically guessing the amount of power in an ongoing spell and then putting that much power or greater into your spell to stop it. If you have a rote counterspell with 4 power you could then use it successfully against any multiple round spell with 4 or less power behind it. You just wouldn't be able to scale the power if it's greater or lesser than 4. Counterspells aren't really that useful though because blocks do basically the same thing without the requirement of having to guess how much power is in a spell.

By spell-prolonging spells do you mean ones that have had power put into duration? If yes then that's perfectly fine for a rote as long as you always cast it with the exact same amount of power in the main effect and the duration.

Counterspells are great against extended blocks or maneuvers which require magic to sustain.

So a magical zone border with duration would be a perfect target of a counterspell
A wizard that puts up magical armour(which doesn't go away after a successful hit) are a great target for count-spells.

I'd allow a rote counter-spell, but I don't think you'd get much mileage out of it, honestly.  Most magic is instantaneous (like an evocation attack) or a maneuver (which can be countered by any justifiable counter-maneuver).

I allow targeting enchanted items for counter-spelling though.  So if your GM is o.k with that, it can be VERY useful.  Each successful counter-spell allows you to use up one charge of an enchanted item.  Of course, you'd have to know what the item in question is to target it.  The Sight would do that, although, that comes with its own problems.

[Saracen]

I would not, however, allow a rote that lets you prolong any spell.

What about any spell of the same element, or maybe any specific kind of spell (for example blocks)? This goes for Tedronai as well.

Sure, if the limitation is narrow enough, you can increase the benefit. If it is or is not usually depends on the table and the campaign. Your example is something I don't really see played out, so I'm not really sure how it would apply in a game. People usually have the weapons they need, and if it is supposed to be a special one, it's usually enough to wrap a whole story around.

Yeah, the example was from a character in a post-apocaliptic world where you can't really go out and buy (most) stuff (also, it was actually molotovs/nail bombs instead of melee weapons, so kind of one-use only).

Nope, it's pretty explicit in the stunt creation rules that you get +1 to a trapping, +2 to a specific use of a trapping and +3 only if it's otherwise very weak or you spend a fate point to activate it.

Actually Your Story reads like this (page 148):

Give a +2 to a specific application of a nonattack trapping (note that a maneuver, page 207, is not an attack, as it doesn’t inflict stress). This may be reduced to +1 for a broader application, or increased to +3 or even +4 for very, very narrowly defined situations.

Anyway, thanks a lot guys. 

[Haru]

What about any spell of the same element, or maybe any specific kind of spell (for example blocks)? This goes for Tedronai as well.

Nope. Even spells of the same element can be vastly different in terms of what they do. The same goes for blocks. Fate is very abstract, so putting something like that under one catch all rote doesn't fit very well.

For example, I could create a fire block by actually putting up a wall of flames. But I could just as well set up a block that emits a mental trigger for the fear of fire in every living being. It would both be fire, but vastly different approaches.

Yeah, the example was from a character in a post-apocaliptic world where you can't really go out and buy (most) stuff (also, it was actually molotovs/nail bombs instead of melee weapons, so kind of one-use only).

Still. I would be pretty bored after a while, if I had to constantly roll to have some weapons. If molotovs and nail bombs are a characters standard weapons, I would simply let him have them. There might be times when I compel him on that, saying he's out, and we make a quick sidequest to get him resupplied, but I wouldn't have him roll craftsmanship over and over to get them.

A stunt that allows him to use craftsmanship for ranged attacks would probably make more sense. He could put crafstmanship as his apex skill and use it to build and attack alike.

[Tedronai]

What about any spell of the same element, or maybe any specific kind of spell (for example blocks)? This goes for Tedronai as well.

Just about the most lenient I would consider being would be to allow a rote spell that adds duration to a single spell of specific fluff description.
For instance, a spell that erects a convex wall of force.  This could be used as a personal defensive block, or could be extended to protect a group, be put to use as a zone border, or even be represented as a maneuver.  For the purpose of rotes, each of those is a distinct spell.
But it would not extend even to another spell of the same element put to the same purpose, if that spell has a different narrative description (say, a cascade of dazzling lights).

Even this I would only implement on a 'trial basis', and would periodically review with the players, and be prepared to retract or alter.

[Saracen]

Fair points, guys. Thanks again.

[Saracen]

Sorry for the double post, but I have a couple other questions:

- Can you spend a fate point at any point in the process of making an action and resolving it, or do you have to declare it after your own roll at the latest? Example 1: I attack and my target defends successfully. Can I then decide to spend a fate point to make that defense a failure? Example 2 (regarding rolls with various degrees of success, and kind of tied to the next question): I use Scholarship for the Answers trapping, and the GM tells me what my character knows on a particular subject depending on my roll and the difficulty set. Can I then spend a fate point if I decide it's too little and I want a better result to remember something else?

- How much is the GM transparent regarding difficulties and the NPCs rolls? My only experiences with Tabletop RPGs are related to D&D, so I'm used to DMs rolling behind screens and only in some cases telling the players what difficulty they need to meet or beat. In the DFRPG, there are mentions of trying to guess the difficulty (best to err on the side of caution, there) or of making assessment actions to discover them... Is that it?

[Haru]

Sorry for the double post, but I have a couple other questions:

After three days, I think it's no longer a double post.

- Can you spend a fate point at any point in the process of making an action and resolving it, or do you have to declare it after your own roll at the latest? Example 1: I attack and my target defends successfully. Can I then decide to spend a fate point to make that defense a failure? Example 2 (regarding rolls with various degrees of success, and kind of tied to the next question): I use Scholarship for the Answers trapping, and the GM tells me what my character knows on a particular subject depending on my roll and the difficulty set. Can I then spend a fate point if I decide it's too little and I want a better result to remember something else?

All your examples are ok. You basically roll the dice to get a preliminary result, and then the bidding war begins. Everyone can pile on as many invokes on aspects as they can pay for and make sense. Only after nobody wants to contribute anything more to the roll, it gets resolved. So in your first example, you can spend a Fate point for a +2 and still get the hit in. But your opponent decides that he really doesn't want to be hit, so he spends a Fate point himself. One of your allies has created an aspect before your attack, and now that he sees you need it, he offers the free tag to you, so you can take the guy out. And so on, until nobody wants to or can do anything anymore.

A Fate point isn't spend in a vacuum though. So in your scholarship example, you could easily spend a Fate point to invoke "I breath library dust", in order to improve your roll, but "dirt bike enthusiast" doesn't really fit and shouldn't be allowed to invoke, unless you can give a good justification as to why it might still fit.

- How much is the GM transparent regarding difficulties and the NPCs rolls? My only experiences with Tabletop RPGs are related to D&D, so I'm used to DMs rolling behind screens and only in some cases telling the players what difficulty they need to meet or beat. In the DFRPG, there are mentions of trying to guess the difficulty (best to err on the side of caution, there) or of making assessment actions to discover them... Is that it?

It really depends on your group. I myself prefer to play with the numbers on the table. Mainly because it lets the players know where to aim, and if spending a Fate point might be worth it or not. Giving them the skill levels etc. of the opposition will also give them a better idea of what they are dealing with, and they can form a better plan.

Guessing the difficulty is part of the counterspell mechanic, and I think the only place it comes up, and I don't think I ever used the mechanic.

[Taran]

FATE is way more transparent.

This may vary depending on the GM but:

1.  I allow FP's to be spent at any point.  So, if you find out you failed to hit, you can spend the FP after the fact to hit.  This might cause a FP war, though.  If the person has FP's too, they might counter.  So, in that case, I'd tell the player first.  "this guy really wants to dodge.  He'll spend a FP to do so, so if you want to hit, you need to spend 2 FP's.  Do you still want to do it?"

That way the player knows the cost in advance and there's no frustration.

2. Scholarship.
The GM should set the Difficulty and tell the player so that they know what the target is.
For the research trapping, as a GM, if it'll create suspense, I might hide it.  Here's why:

You can spend extra time to succeed.  If there's something urgent and you fail, you can choose to spend extra time but you may not know how much time you need.

In that case, I'd hide the difficulty, but I'd be transparent about the trade-off.
"If you succeed on time 'x' will happen;  If you take too long, 'y' will happen.

Then they'll know what the stakes are.  In any case, I'd tell them whether spending a FP will make the difference between success and failure.  You don't want them spending FP's for nothing.

NPC's rolls.
I don't see any point of hiding stuff.  You may want to hide their actual skill, but difficulties should be transparent and with the ability to use FP's to re-roll, there's no need to cheat on a roll.  I never fluffed rolls when GMing, so I never needed a DM screen except to hide my notes.

I've also always been against hiding the DC's for rolls in D&D.  I'm a rock climber.  I have a fairly good idea how hard a climb will be just by looking at the rock.  I think the same applies for most tasks.  You'll have a fairly good idea of how difficult something is before you do it, if you have any experience at all.  So why hide the difficulty.

For social rolls like sense motive and bluff, it makes sense to hide rolls but in DFRPG, social combat works the same as physical.  So you don't need to hide the rolls.  The player knows the opposition is lying, the character doesn't.  Mechanically, the opposition has an aspect to tag or invoke to represent the lie, so mechanically, they still have an advantage even though the player knows about the lie. (does that make sense?)

[PirateJack]

- Can you spend a fate point at any point in the process of making an action and resolving it, or do you have to declare it after your own roll at the latest? Example 1: I attack and my target defends successfully. Can I then decide to spend a fate point to make that defense a failure? Example 2 (regarding rolls with various degrees of success, and kind of tied to the next question): I use Scholarship for the Answers trapping, and the GM tells me what my character knows on a particular subject depending on my roll and the difficulty set. Can I then spend a fate point if I decide it's too little and I want a better result to remember something else?

My background is with DnD type games, so I had a lot of trouble with this when I first started GMing. My instinct is to say 'tough luck, better dice next time', but that's not how FATE works. The balance of power between player and GM is much closer to even in this system, which means spending Fate Points at any point during your turn (including after information has been given).

That said, I do require my players to have a good explanation for why their invocation of an aspect is giving them an extra advantage.

Say, for example, Ben the player has his character Andrew the White Court Professor roll Lore to work out the weakness of the gribbly monster that has charged into his lecture. The GM sets the difficulty at +5. Andrew is rushed, this creature is fast and the room is full of screaming students. Not exactly ideal conditions for concentration.

Ben is confident that he can make this roll; Andrew has a Lore of +4. Disaster strikes! Ben has rolled a 0, giving him a total of +4, one short of his target! Ben knows that he needs to know this thing's weakness. He can't expose his true nature in front of all of his students, even if the fear they are giving off is delicious. He needs to hit this thing hard where it will hurt and hopefully drive it off. So Ben invokes Andrew's Occult Historian aspect, thinking that Andrew has spent decades studying the supernatural and is bound to have come across this thing somewhere.

That puts Ben's total over the difficulty rating, meaning he now passes the test and remembers that this thing is in fact a Chepi, a Native American spirit that gifts medicine men with healing knowledge and can be called upon to act as an avenging entity. He also knows that it shares a weakness with the Fae; cold iron is a bane to it on a physical and spiritual level, so on Andrew's next turn he picks up the steel ruler from his desk and throws it at the Chepi, scoring a direct hit and sending it fleeing in fear.

Ahhhh, delicious.

- How much is the GM transparent regarding difficulties and the NPCs rolls? My only experiences with Tabletop RPGs are related to D&D, so I'm used to DMs rolling behind screens and only in some cases telling the players what difficulty they need to meet or beat. In the DFRPG, there are mentions of trying to guess the difficulty (best to err on the side of caution, there) or of making assessment actions to discover them... Is that it?

In my experience it very much depends on the circumstances. If they're trying to scale a fence while being chased by dogs, tell them the difficulty outright. If they're searching through a spiritual reflection of the Library of Alexandria for a tome on Greek Fire (the only substance known to be able to hurt the escaped Titans), maybe keep the difficulty secret but have alternate (easier) options for interesting tidbits.

As a rule of thumb, if they're on a time limit I'd say give them the difficulty because it keeps the sense of urgency. If they're not that rushed for time or it's something they wouldn't be able to guess the difficulty of beforehand, I'd say keep it secret. Sometimes a little mystery is good for a group.

[Saracen]

Thanks, everyone. That was very helpful.

[GamingInSeattle]

I'd like to add a question to the thread, as I'm a new to GMing DFRPG and we had our first home made character session last night.

We had our Russian Wizard Russlan want to do a ritual to provide our Acquisition Expert Jack with an aspect that would help her go unnoticed.

In an alley, after making a circle and invoking a symbolic link, the question came up of how does Russlan roll for this.  Most ritual spells I've seen in the book usually involves a contest of some kind.  Raising enough energy/shifts to guarantee a success vs the targets defensive roll.

Here, however, we have a willing target.  I just applied the 3 shift cost evocation cost for creating a maneuver plus one shift for making the maneuver sticky for one scene starting when the aspect is tagged or invoked.

Thoughts?

One question I did have was that on YS 264, it says under Simple Actions "whenever you use magic on someone, you inevitably contest with their will".  Does this mean there are no willing targets in game and that you must always overcome their base resist skill? (Discipline, Lore, etc depending on the Maneuver you wish to place)

Thanks!

~ GIS

[PirateJack]

I'd probably go with making it a simple action for willing participants. The Wizard sets a target for how much power he wants to put into it (including for duration) and then rolls Discipline until he's controlled the power.

Also, most players will opt to go for controlling one point of power at a time if there's no rush, since why risk it going up in your face or having to use Fate Points? In that case I'd just say they auto-succeed and place the aspect on your Acquisition Expert. That's only if there's no pressure, however. If there is, roll Discipline to control and have NPCs interrupt to try and make him fail. You've also got to be wary of people trying to abuse this mechanic, since layering everyone in sticky aspects before a fight can make for a very one-sided (read: boring) fight scene.

[Taran]

Yeah.  No resistance for the person getting the spell.  They let the magic take effect.

You could do a skill replacement instead of a maneuver, if the wizards lore would be better than the other person's stealth.  You get it for one roll, essentially, and it would guarantee a set number.

And like PirateJack said, watch out for this.  Stacking aspects could become a problem.  Rituals - even simple ones - take a bit of time and aren't usually too subtle.  If they started buffing everyone in the party while standing in the alley-way, I'd start rolling alertness checks or have someone show up unexpectedly.

[GamingInSeattle]

So I have learned quite a bit about Invoking Aspects, Invoking for Effect & Compels this week, partly by reading a thread where Fred explained that Tags can be used to Invoke for Effect.

My question is this, can you Invoke for Effect after you perform an action but before your turn ends?

For example:

Mack the Monster Hunter uses his Shotgun and Weapons roll to place the aspect "Shaken Badly" on a BadGuy.  Can the player then immediately Tag "Shaken Badly" to Invoke for Effect and suggest that the BadGuy is now out of the fight, cowering on the floor? 

Or, does Mack have to wait until his next turn to do so or to pass the Tag to another PC who can then Invoke for Effect to suggest removing BadGuy from the fight in the same way?

Thanks all!  Slowly getting this system down.

~ GiS