It’s an example how magic works in the Dresdenverse. All the magic in the game is based around how it works in the books.
That doesn’t make it relevant. You missed the point I made above. It’s irrelevant because it isn’t a specific example of the phenomenon at hand. There are many ways to reach love facilitated by magic; that the book points out one way it
cannot work (and implies/describes several other ways it cannot work) is irrelevant. There are many way to fail at machine-powered flight; the Wright brothers came up many, then found one that worked.
These aren’t assumptions – if you’ve read the short story you will see that he spent days investigating before getting away.
And how does this negate the assumptions? Dresden is still a thaumaturgist of finite ability. The Wright brothers, again, took quite some time -- and probably had less pressure to succeed.
And, um, there’s the fact that wizards don’t like to share knowledge. That’s a pretty big deal here when it comes to personal limitations. If you have the answer to a vexing problem, it may be in your best interests to convince the world that there is no answer. . .
He has Bob. Bob is unrivalled. When asked the right question Bob has the answer
So Bob > the Merlin? More assumptions. Dresden always knows the right answer to ask? More assumptions. Wait, no, that Bob thing isn’t an assumption -- it’s incorrect. Bob is old, and wise, and extremely experienced, but that doesn’t make him perfect or near-perfect. By this logic, there should be vampires running around that could trump him.
If Bob were truly unrivaled and always provided the right answer, the plots of the stories wouldn’t advance past “Bob tells Dresden exactly what to do.” Bob is not the omniscient being you’re implying he is.
We differ here. The designer has tried to make the game as close to the books as possible. He has also seen “the outline” – which plans out the entire 22 books and trilogy.
Um, no, this is wrong. I was making reference to some of the designer’s own comments. The design is deliberately limited in scope to keep Mr. Butcher from having to feel limited by the RPG -- the designer mentioned as much someplace previously.
His creativity is why he lives when he fights out of his weight class. He routinely survives things that he label’s heavy weights. . .
This does not make Dresden unrivaled in creativity. It merely makes him creative. By your logic, Picasso could have spoken on music with complete authority, and Philip Glass can tell you everything you need to know about sculpting.
You’re forgetting that he has Bob – a source of near infinite knowledge.
Not forgotten -- and, as previously mentioned, not near-infinte.
You feel that True Love is can easy be used as a weapon and thus should be worth more.
Wait, what? You completely mischaracterize my position. I pointed out above that love cannot be
easily used as a weapon, even though it can be engineered and arranged through magical and mundane means. Actually, I feel silly repeating myself here -- I know I wrote as much above and have just reviewed the earlier statements. I even say that the catch is worth only +0 and imply that +1 is an overcharitable longshot. Did you even read the section you quoted? How can you come to the conclusion that I said that true love is “easily” used as a weapon if I grant the anthrophage no point reduction? This evaluation of my position is both logically incoherent and contrary to my statements. With respect, are you reading what I wrote or deciding to argue against an argument you have created?
I’ve tried to cite the sources as evidence, you disagree that the books should be cited.
No, I’ve disagreed with the assumption -- completely unfounded and only once (in one sentence above) even mentioned by yourself -- that the citations you’ve mentioned are relevant. I do recognize that the books are, of course, important.
Why don’t we agree that in your game True Love can be used as a weapon and thus should be worth a bit more?
Ah, now here we have an honest and clear disagreement. My position is that though love can be “weaponized,” the effort to engineer it would be comparable to, and less effective than, hiring a guy named Guido to snipe the pale little maggot.* If someone made a human that was very tough and fast in a game I’m running then pointed out that “concentrated hydrochloric acid, available at chemical supply stores, will stop him in his tracks!” I’d laugh and still deny him a point break. Humans are absolutely surrounded by toxic and hostile substances; I don’t think the Catch of the WCV really makes them much more vulnerable than humans in the main.
If this were a much sharper point-buy system, instead of FATE, you’re d@mn skippy I’d grant that points. But a refresh is a big, big stack of stats -- too big for this particular characteristic.
Change systems and we’d be in agreement: the WCV disadvantage is worth points.
In FATE? Not so much.
If you want those points and I have a say, switch to Champions or GURPS or something with extremely particular character creation systems.
*Some of our number are biased against predatory parahumans, and the attitude is infectious.
But the implication you mean by this point, that the opposite is also true, that its okay to ignore or flat out contradict the source material is just flat out wrong.
Well, it’s a good thing that the only place that implication and contradiction exists is in your head. I made no such claim and implied nothing of the sort and took great pains to make it clear that the book’s text cited by the previously-quoted poster was not on point. Given that it was not on point, I did not contradict it. Indeed, your claim is a severe mischaracterization since I went out of my way to point out why the example was irrelevant and offered no guidance -- and offered no limits on magic at large. We had this sort of thing come up here; the books were found inadequate by the players, your unflattering (and unwarranted) comparison notwithstanding. But that makes sense: they’re novels, not the Bible. (Hell, the Bible isn’t the bible of everything: it doesn’t cover lots of stuff. Which is good: it’s long enough as it is.)
