Breath Weapons

[BumblingBear]

And for consistency, I'd say you should just allow strength then for any breath weapon, otherwise it strongly encourages players to focus on a description that allows that bonus rather than one that appeals to them aesthetically.

Uh... I disagree.

Not everyone plays to do the most damage.  I mean, if that is what someone wanted they could play a wizard or something with supernatural strength and claws.

I'm actually considering getting a fire breath weapon now if my character gets high enough level.

[bitterpill]

The only way to justify that is playing the fourth billygoat gruff, a wizard with strength and claws

[bitterpill]

I mean, if that is what someone wanted they could play a wizard or something with supernatural strength and claws.

The only way to justify that is playing the fourth billygoat gruff, a wizard with strength and claws though that probably isn't what you meant.

[Drachasor]

Uh... I disagree.

Not everyone plays to do the most damage.  I mean, if that is what someone wanted they could play a wizard or something with supernatural strength and claws.

Naturally many players don't optimize, which is all the more reason the rules should be friendly to players who are most interested in thematics/aesthetics/style.  The benefit of pure optimization should be kept as small as is reasonable, and imho it is egregiously bad design/gming to give one person a tremendous benefit if they have different FLUFF on an ability compared to another person with other fluff.  Giving the strength benefit to someone that takes Breath Weapon if they describe it one way vs. not giving it to them if they describe it another is just a bad call.  Rule one way or the other for how it works for all people taking Breath Weapon and that enables the players greater freedom in describing how it works for their character.

[BumblingBear]

The only way to justify that is playing the fourth billygoat gruff, a wizard with strength and claws though that probably isn't what you meant.

I have an "or" in there.

It's not impossible, though.  Emissaries of power can get physical buffs too.

[sinker]

Naturally many players don't optimize, which is all the more reason the rules should be friendly to players who are most interested in thematics/aesthetics/style.  The benefit of pure optimization should be kept as small as is reasonable, and imho it is egregiously bad design/gming to give one person a tremendous benefit if they have different FLUFF on an ability compared to another person with other fluff.  Giving the strength benefit to someone that takes Breath Weapon if they describe it one way vs. not giving it to them if they describe it another is just a bad call.  Rule one way or the other for how it works for all people taking Breath Weapon and that enables the players greater freedom in describing how it works for their character.

I see this is a difference between your style and mine. You're looking at fluff as just that, fluff. However in DFRPG a lot of the rules have to do with what is thematically appropriate. Does something perform a spray attack? If it's thematically appropriate it does (I.E. if the fluff is right). Does an aspect give you a bonus to this situation? If it's thematically appropriate. There are a lot of unfair advantages that being clever with the theme can get you, and it's exactly what DFRPG is about. Being clever with the flavor.

[Drachasor]

I see this is a difference between your style and mine. You're looking at fluff as just that, fluff. However in DFRPG a lot of the rules have to do with what is thematically appropriate. Does something perform a spray attack? If it's thematically appropriate it does (I.E. if the fluff is right). Does an aspect give you a bonus to this situation? If it's thematically appropriate. There are a lot of unfair advantages that being clever with the theme can get you, and it's exactly what DFRPG is about. Being clever with the flavor.

Yes, of course, but given people who describe their Breath Weapon one way the bonus to damage due to Strength Powers and not giving it to those who describe it a different way is still unfair and goes far beyond the use of aspects and such.  It's very nearly given one group of people a free invoke of an aspect (or multiple free invokes) every time they use their Breath Weapon (certainly every time they hit).  And you can argue a justification for a spray attack (which are generally rather weak anyhow) in either one of those two groups.

Aspects go beyond flavor and into rules, and certainly the flavor is part of the rules there.  That's a good thing, and it gives power to the imagination, the creativity, of the players.  Further, you can be creative with it at any time.  A new person might have a lot to learn and it could be many sessions before they are using aspects well, but once they catch on, they can use it just as well as anything else.  This is not at all the case if the GM makes a connection between the fluff of a breath weapon and whether or not it works with strength powers.  The player gets tied to that description in a way that goes far beyond how aspects work, and they are stuck there unless they really change their description in what should be a fairly minor respect (and it doesn't affect anything else about what aspects they can use with the weapon, etc...generally speaking).  That sort of thing should be avoided whenever possible, because it makes many players start worrying far too much about min-maxing descriptions than picking ones that they find cool and appropriate for their character.

I'd argue that breath weapons should either all give spray attacks or none give them as well.  IMHO, as written none of them do (that should be something mentioned, like how claws get strength bonuses).  But there's certainly no reason why any basic description of a breath weapon, whether it is something thrown, breathed, shot out of the eyes, or whatever, couldn't be fluffed into doing a spray attack if the GM says BW can do that (you only have to justify how they can hit multiple targets...easy enough).

[sinker]

I'm just trying to point out that a lot of the RAW in DFRPG is about "what makes sense." Ultimately you can (and should) do what ever works best for you, just as I can, however if you look at the rules they will ask you "what makes sense thematically?"

[Sanctaphrax]

Most games make a great effort to be fair, and fail. This one doesn't make nearly as much effort, and does just as well.

[Drachasor]

Most games make a great effort to be fair, and fail. This one doesn't make nearly as much effort, and does just as well.

Most games actually don't make much of an effort to be fair (D&D is a classic example of this, for what it is worth).  A simplified ruleset makes it easier to be fair however which this game has.  In general, as a GM I have always found it best to make rulings that maximize player creativity and freedom while not providing tricks to increase min-maxers.  Going to far into "whatever fluff you have for your ability is going to govern how it interacts with things like Supernatural Strength and other non-fluff things" can quickly make a game give too much power to min-maxing and then it further hurts the players who are just trying to be creative and care a lot about aesthetics over other things.

Aspects are a flexible and good system for handling how fluff interacts with the game, and that's where it should remain.  (Stuff like spray attacks are actually spelled out in the rules pretty well, guns need to be fully automatic or have a spread in their fire, flamethrowers, etc, for what it is worth, anything described in particular, like evocations, explicitly mentions if it can be used to make spray attacks, and stunts are available for other things).

[sinker]

To be fair, in your attempt to encourage player creativity of fluff, you're actually discouraging other forms of creativity. What if one of your players says "I want to breathe fire! I'm taking breath weapon." And later on they say "I want to draw my fire breath across the whole crowd!" Your response is going to be "I'm sorry breath weapons can't do that?"

It's interesting that in attempting to discourage min-maxing you're also discouraging creative use of resources in play. I find that the best way to discourage min-maxing is by discouraging min-maxing. Maybe I'm just lucky in that I play with a group of like minded adults who are willing to try their hardest to ensure that everyone at the table has a good time, and are mostly open to fair criticism.

[Drachasor]

To be fair, in your attempt to encourage player creativity of fluff, you're actually discouraging other forms of creativity. What if one of your players says "I want to breathe fire! I'm taking breath weapon." And later on they say "I want to draw my fire breath across the whole crowd!" Your response is going to be "I'm sorry breath weapons can't do that?"

It's interesting that in attempting to discourage min-maxing you're also discouraging creative use of resources in play. I find that the best way to discourage min-maxing is by discouraging min-maxing. Maybe I'm just lucky in that I play with a group of like minded adults who are willing to try their hardest to ensure that everyone at the table has a good time, and are mostly open to fair criticism.

Well, I cry foul on that.  First, my judgment on spray attacks is completely separate to my judgment on how Strength Powers should work with Breath Weapon.  The latter is actually two judgments, first that all breath weapons should be treated the same way in that regard, and second is that SP should stack with Breath Weapons.  Saying that those two judgements about SPs is somehow affecting my judgment about Spray Attacks, isn't fair.  Personally, I tend to view Spray Attacks as somewhat weak and Breath Weapon as overpriced, so I don't think I'd have a problem letting them work with Breath Weapons.  That, I think, you have confused with my evaluation of what the rules say, which is also a different judgment altogether.  The rules indicate to me that Strength Powers are not intended to work with Breath Weapons (but they do work with Claws), and that they don't allow Spray Attacks with Breath Weapons.  I don't feel extremely bound to the rules as written, especially when they overprice something, but it is important to be aware of what they are.

Would I also be guilty of being against player creativity if someone with a Halberd wanted to do a spray attack on multiple people in the zone and I said "no, you don't have the right stunt for that"?

[sinker]

I apologize if that came across as harsh, it wasn't my intent. But to be fair you did say earlier that you would allow all breath weapons spray attacks, or allow none (and it seemed like you were leaning towards none since the power didn't specifically state it). I wasn't really stating anything about your thoughts on strength powers (unless it was a slight implication that you're making similar judgments).

I guess this is just a difference between the two of us. I like putting the theme ahead of the rules (or lack thereof) even if it means a little fudging later or asking someone to stop taking advantage of my generosity. You clearly put an importance on a structured set of rules that apply fairly to all (or most), and to be honest had you talked to me about it a few years ago I may have agreed with you. I am a rules-lawyer at heart.

[Drachasor]

I apologize if that came across as harsh, it wasn't my intent. But to be fair you did say earlier that you would allow all breath weapons spray attacks, or allow none (and it seemed like you were leaning towards none since the power didn't specifically state it). I wasn't really stating anything about your thoughts on strength powers (unless it was a slight implication that you're making similar judgments).

I apologize if I wasn't clear.  I hadn't fully thought about it earlier, so I didn't commit to a particular position.

I guess this is just a difference between the two of us. I like putting the theme ahead of the rules (or lack thereof) even if it means a little fudging later or asking someone to stop taking advantage of my generosity. You clearly put an importance on a structured set of rules that apply fairly to all (or most), and to be honest had you talked to me about it a few years ago I may have agreed with you. I am a rules-lawyer at heart.

Theme is very important, I agree.  As a GM, I think one has a responsibility to make sure the theme a particular player has WORKS.  One thing I hate about D&D (well, not so much 4th Edition, it has its own problems though), is that very often the thematic concept a player can have sucks in practice.  Fighter-mages (also known more generally as a Gish), for instance, are crap for a lot of levels and take a lot of work to be really effective.  A lot of fighter concepts can really suck or just be overspecialized (perhaps that should be "all fighter concepts"...depending on level of course).  (The other thing I hate about D&D is how insanely random it is).  What I don't like about Breath Weapon by RAW is it is kind of a crappy way to spend 2 refresh.  I'm not against a person having a breath weapon or stylizing it however they want, but I think if I were running a game I'd want to make sure the 2 refresh was worth it and stacked up well to other uses of 2 refresh.  To me that's something of critical importance, because if the players trust you to have their backs regarding the fairness of game mechanics, then they can feel free to pursue whatever sort of thematic features they want without having to worry about whether they'll be effective or not.  I tend to play with people concerned about effectiveness and that sort of thing (and as a player I admit I am someone like that, but also someone who hates it when something I love thematically just can't work mechanically and so I must subjugate my desires to whatever the particular system happens to support well or kind of suck).

If I was running a game in the DFRPG, and someone picked something I felt wasn't worth the refresh after careful consideration or after playing for a while, I'd give them some options on how to boost it up -- I'd probably have more than one idea, but all the ideas together would be too powerful.

[sinker]

I can agree with most of that.

To me that's something of critical importance, because if the players trust you to have their backs regarding the fairness of game mechanics, then they can feel free to pursue whatever sort of thematic features they want without having to worry about whether they'll be effective or not.  I tend to play with people concerned about effectiveness and that sort of thing (and as a player I admit I am someone like that, but also someone who hates it when something I love thematically just can't work mechanically and so I must subjugate my desires to whatever the particular system happens to support well or kind of suck).

I think sometimes that I've been gaming for so long with many of the same people that I forget that there are people who don't automatically go through that whole process internally and instinctively. Thanks for the reminder Drachasor.