Spirit Spell

[devonapple]

If I stipulate that the spell is resisted by Discipline wouldn't the targets have to defeat it with that or be forced to inaction (or to run away) for a round by the spell?

Running away or inaction would be tactical choices made on a case-by-case basis.
Or possibly a Compel in the case of an Evocation Maneuver Aspect (as opposed to a Block).

My players generally do Zonewide Evocation Blocks versus movement, resisted by Athletics, the skill needed to move in a hurry. That's just one action type, with a single obvious opposed skill.

[UmbraLux]

If I stipulate that the spell is resisted by Discipline wouldn't the targets have to defeat it with that or be forced to inaction (or to run away) for a round by the spell?

My point was simply that it's a group game with a shared narrative.  If you stipulate Discipline and your GM agrees, then yes - they should use Discipline to attempt penetrating the block.  IMO GM's should only agree if it makes sense.  If other things appear to apply, bring them up as options.  By the same logic, players have the option of trying to convince the GM. 

For comparison: a block against damage is penetrable by any damage causing skill; a ward against entry may be broken by anything which allows you to force entry; and a grapple may be broken by just about any physical skill you'd care to use and, potentially, a few non-physical skills.

[Drachasor]

Running away or inaction would be tactical choices made on a case-by-case basis.
Or possibly a Compel in the case of an Evocation Maneuver Aspect (as opposed to a Block).

My players generally do Zonewide Evocation Blocks versus movement, resisted by Athletics, the skill needed to move in a hurry. That's just one action type, with a single obvious opposed skill.

Mmm, not sure that's how blocks should work exactly.  You should be able to resist with any appropriate skill.  If you have a grappling hook and a rope, then you should be able to pull yourself out of the movement block using Might.  Blocks are generally against a particular kind of ACTION (move, maneuver, attack, block...this is explicit), veils allow blocks against DETECTION as well.  You don't have blocks against "using discipline" or the like in the rules.  Indeed, if you are trying to stop someone form thinking, then you should be doing a mental attack of some sort and try to inflict consequences (or a maneuver).  Since you can potentially come up with a lot of ways to do a move action (drive, might, athletics, etc), any one of them can overcome a block against movement, if justified.  I think otherwise it can get way overpowered (I block his ability to think about moving since I know his discipline is crap).

[devonapple]

Since you can potentially come up with a lot of ways to do a move action (drive, might, athletics, etc), any one of them can overcome a block against movement, if justified.  I think otherwise it can get way overpowered (I block his ability to think about moving since I know his discipline is crap).

Ah, perhaps I should have mentioned that, with the Block versus Moving as resisted by Athletics, the victims who make the Athletics check are also getting to move if they break the block. I suppose they could have used Might to break the block as well, but then they would have used an action. None of the Jiang Shi had a car, though, so no Driving check. I may also have been Compelling their Hopping Vampire aspect to limit how they could break out of their bonds.

[Drachasor]

Ah, perhaps I should have mentioned that, with the Block versus Moving as resisted by Athletics, the victims who make the Athletics check are also getting to move if they break the block. I suppose they could have used Might to break the block as well, but then they would have used an action. None of the Jiang Shi had a car, though, so no Driving check. I may also have been Compelling their Hopping Vampire aspect to limit how they could break out of their bonds.

Yeah, I am just pointing out a block is against a particular kind of action, not a particular skill.  It's important to keep that in mind.  Even veils aren't against alterness or the like, they are against DETECTION.*

*Interesting thing here that the GM might have to arbitrate.  If a veil has a weakness, then how do the PCs know about that enough to try to pierce it using a declaration (it doesn't fully stop smell and I have Beast Senses, so I get a +2 to smell 'em!).  The GM has to kind of handle that, seems like, since the player might not even know the guy is there.

[HumAnnoyd]

You should be able to resist with any appropriate skill.

But how would Athletics, Might or Weapons help you with resisting a horrific apparition rushing right at your face like it is about to rip it off while screeching with a soul numbing wail?  I guess I am getting just a bit confused at how open to interpretation these rules really are.

[bitterpill]

To resisit fear caused by appiritions you could roll discipline to ignore, lore to realise it cannot hurt you, conviction to carry on even given you fear and alertness to work out it is not real.

[Drachasor]

But how would Athletics, Might or Weapons help you with resisting a horrific apparition rushing right at your face like it is about to rip it off while screeching with a soul numbing wail?  I guess I am getting just a bit confused at how open to interpretation these rules really are.

'

What kind of block is that intended to be?  Remember, if you overcome a block, your efforts are still reduced by the block, so it isn't like you were struggling with something.

If your example is a block against movement, then the person just does his best to ignore those wails, visions, and forces and overcomes them if he beats the block (with his net effort giving him his result - block in movement).

[Drachasor]

To resisit fear caused by appiritions you could roll discipline to ignore, lore to realise it cannot hurt you, conviction to carry on even given you fear and alertness to work out it is not real.

If they are apparitions, then a discipline to ignore them might work (though you wouldn't get any movement out of it).  Lore to realize they can't hurt you would just be an Assessment that would give you a bonus to resist them.  I think the conviction and altertness bits are similar to that.

Again, going by the rules (which seem quite reasonable here), a block against movement can be overcome by anything that causes you to move.  A block against attacks can be overcome by any attack attempt you make, no matter the skill.  A block against blocking can be overcome by any sort of block attempt.  A block against maneuvers can be overcome by any maneuver.  With in reason of course, but if you can't overcome it with that attempt then you aren't being blocked -- a block only can stop actions that can overcome it.

[devonapple]

Yeah, I am just pointing out a block is against a particular kind of action, not a particular skill.  It's important to keep that in mind.  Even veils aren't against alterness or the like, they are against DETECTION.*

Yeah, mechanically, that's true. How do we simulate metagame effects like fright and horror, though?

[HumAnnoyd]

Yeah, mechanically, that's true. How do we simulate metagame effects like fright and horror, though?

Would this whole thing be better simulated by making it a weapon 3 mental attack with possible consequences representing the fear that it would cause?  If so would this then be violating the Laws of Magic?

[bitterpill]

Would this whole thing be better simulated by making it a weapon 3 mental attack with possible consequences representing the fear that it would cause?  If so would this then be violating the Laws of Magic?

Yes

(click to show/hide)

It is what got Molly done by the White Council

As long as it was not a direct attack though it should not break the lore like projecting the pained faces of the loved ones of the enemy via illusions would not be breaking the law.

[Drachasor]

Yeah, mechanically, that's true. How do we simulate metagame effects like fright and horror, though?

If you are scaring someone away, then that sounds more like a maneuver, invoked for effect (resulting in a compel).  Potentially it would be a mental attack.

Sure though, you can do fear as a block in some manner, but that has a limited amount of teeth to it.  It attempts to stop an action, but that action can still go through.  It's being horrendously cheap (and in fact rightly against the rules) to put up a block on someone and say "this is fear, you can only overcome it with discipline or something like that".  That just leads to people with magic making blocks that can only be overcome by the weakest skill a known enemy has...and it is just messed up in general.  Weapons can easily represent your MARTIAL discipline (e.g. training and such), much like it can represent knowledge.  One shouldn't look at skills so narrowly.  Otherwise you're essentially putting up two blocks attached to each other, and one of those blocks is of infinite strength...and how lame is that?

[devonapple]

If you are scaring someone away, then that sounds more like a maneuver, invoked for effect (resulting in a compel).  Potentially it would be a mental attack.

Sure though, you can do fear as a block in some manner, but that has a limited amount of teeth to it.  It attempts to stop an action, but that action can still go through.  It's being horrendously cheap (and in fact rightly against the rules) to put up a block on someone and say "this is fear, you can only overcome it with discipline or something like that".  That just leads to people with magic making blocks that can only be overcome by the weakest skill a known enemy has...and it is just messed up in general.  Weapons can easily represent your MARTIAL discipline (e.g. training and such), much like it can represent knowledge.  One shouldn't look at skills so narrowly.  Otherwise you're essentially putting up two blocks attached to each other, and one of those blocks is of infinite strength...and how lame is that?

I suspect that the halfway point between the two is perhaps setting up an Aspect and then using an Invoke-for-Effect/Compel to specify they won't do X until they pass a check of skill Y, like someone who has been hit with the aspect "On the Ground" is going to be on the ground until they make an Athletics check to get up. For doing this to a large group of people, you need a lot of shifts (for stacking up free tags) or a lot of Fate Points.

[Drachasor]

I suspect that the halfway point between the two is perhaps setting up an Aspect and then using an Invoke-for-Effect/Compel to specify they won't do X until they pass a check of skill Y, like someone who has been hit with the aspect "On the Ground" is going to be on the ground until they make an Athletics check to get up. For doing this to a large group of people, you need a lot of shifts (for stacking up free tags) or a lot of Fate Points.

Hmm, a compel to force someone to make a particular check?  That kind of strikes me as against the spirit of compels, which are negotiated.  The whole idea of forcing someone to make a particular skill check is rather against the spirit of the rules, imho.  You might be confronted with a particular obstacle, but you should be able to exercise your full breadth of creativity in dealing with it.  Now I can see knocking someone over as a compel, but not forcing them to have to get up in a particular manner at a particular difficulty.  This isn't to say there aren't certain skills that tend to be better suited for some situations/blocks/whatever than others, but that doesn't mean there should be a way to force someone to use that skill if they have another one that will get the job done.