Zone Wide Effects

[ways and means]

I have had a disagreement with several DFrpgers over the zone wide rule of certain weapons and spell, I personally take zone wide with a wide pinch of salt so if three enemies are walking right next to each other, several meters from the party but still tecnically in the same zone (a school main hall) I would let a wizard hit all three of them without hitting the rest of the party for the zone modifier becuase in my opinion a wizard could have that much control. I will also allow a wizard to hit everyone in the same zone as him but himself if he explains it reasonably so a wizard can do an outward circular wave spell without hitting himself.  

So I want to ask the forums how many people treat zones with a pinch of salt or how many treat zone borders as written in stone.    

[Tallyrand]

Personally I would do it the same way you suggest, hasn't really come up as a problem in my group yet though.

[EldritchFire]

I would like to begin by saying "Your table, your rules."

However, since you're asking for advice, here is mine. There are rules for attacking specific targets within a zone on page 251. In brief, you split up the Power and Control of the spell, so there is at least one shift of both for each target. I bring this up because if you're in a zone where a zone-wide attack is taking place, you're going to get hit.

Also, in your example, you said that the two groups are "several meters" apart. That sounds like two separate zones to me. Remember, "A zone is
an abstract region of the space the conflict takes place in, loosely defined as an area in which two characters are close enough to interact directly (which is a nice way of saying “can talk to or punch each other in the face”)," page 197, Framing the Scene.

I personally would find it hard to either talk to or punch someone who is several meters away.

Another thing you could do is use mooks. If they're not all that important to the conflict, have two or three "individuals" be one stat-block. That way, One well-placed attack can take care of them all without having to worry about petty things like splash damage :p

Again, these are all my opinions. Take them with the proverbial grain of salt  ^_^

-EF

[citadel97501]

This came up during a game, however since only the spell casters already have extreme accuracy compared to the other players and were the only ones with zone effects available, I ruled on the side of caution although it could have reasonably went the other way.  

[sinker]

Also, in your example, you said that the two groups are "several meters" apart. That sounds like two separate zones to me. Remember, "A zone is
an abstract region of the space the conflict takes place in, loosely defined as an area in which two characters are close enough to interact directly (which is a nice way of saying “can talk to or punch each other in the face”)," page 197, Framing the Scene.

I personally would find it hard to either talk to or punch someone who is several meters away.

This is kinda where I'm at with your specific example, however to the much more general questions posited I would say this:

I'm fine with a wizard not hitting themselves in almost any situation. It seems silly to me to have someone experienced in the art of spellslinging who is incapable of doing it on a wide scale without hurting themselves. Someone like that isn't going to last long.

As far as zone attacks I figure that allowing a wizard to reduce the spell's strength by two to hit every target in the zone is powerful enough without allowing them to choose their targets as well. I can see where you're coming from with this, but for me if a wizard doesn't want to hurt his friends then he's got plenty of other options. Zone wide means zone wide.

[ways and means]

Does that mean you can haver zones within zones if the hypothetical size of zone can be anything from 2 or 3  meters to a hundred.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Does that mean you can haver zones within zones if the hypothetical size of zone can be anything from 2 or 3  meters to a hundred.

Yes.

On the original subject: I'm the opposite of you.  If you want to pick and choose targets, that's what spray attacks are for.  You can probably push the accuracy high enough do make this worth while at higher refresh levels.  I may break from the rules and say that a wizard can ignore himself though.  I see it as a bit silly to drop a fireball on yourself.

[BumblingBear]

I am pretty hard line about casters using zones for zone attack rules.  Otherwise a wizard has no reason to ever change zones - ever.

That said, I allow zone attacks to anyone who has a weapon that could thematically be used for a zone attack.

Automatic weapons, flamethrowers, etc.  As long as they lower the weapon rating by 2 like a wizard would, they can make a zone attack.

For an automatic pistol with a weapon:2, this could create interesting combat by a PC making zone attacks with a 0 weapon.

I really try to run my games to be thematically appropriate and make sense.

It doesn't make sense to me to allow a wizard to hit 3 critters a few meters apart and a few meters away with a zone attack unless they are in a different zone.

Each GMs does zones differently.  My zones tend to be larger than other people's because I figure each action is about 2-5 seconds.  In a few seconds, an average person can move 10 -20 feet to attack someone in melee.

[ways and means]

I would have thought it would be easier to hit everyone in half a zone than a whole zone especially if a zone is particularly large, a fireball which has a 3 meters diameter should be easier to summon than one that is 10 meters in diameter. My problem is a lack of control over the scale as the difference between a single attack and a zone can be massive, I suppose I might just deal with by problem by letting Wizards choose their own zone for example if wizard decides to hit everyone  front of him then he is hitting the infront of him zone, even if in front of him happens to be part of another zone which he happpen to be in.

[Sanctaphrax]

Absolutely not.

I view the risk of hitting yourself as an important restriction on the power of zonewide attacks.

Also, I refuse to define people's positions within a zone. That's way too much hassle, and it doesn't work within the rules. The only descriptor of location that this game contains (as far as I know) is the zone that you are in. Things like "in front of me" and "the left half of that zone" simply don't exist.

PS: This game is not very simulationist at all. Thinking of it in that way won't work very well.

[ways and means]

Absolutely not.

I view the risk of hitting yourself as an important restriction on the power of zonewide attacks.

Also, I refuse to define people's positions within a zone. That's way too much hassle, and it doesn't work within the rules. The only descriptor of location that this game contains (as far as I know) is the zone that you are in. Things like "in front of me" and "the left half of that zone" simply don't exist.

PS: This game is not very simulationist at all. Thinking of it in that way won't work very well.

That kind of feel silly to me, not your opinion just the total abstraction of the system, the only way I could run under that view was with tiny zones homogenous zones of several meters max but then I would be getting into D and D rules.

[Sanctaphrax]

The abstraction of the system is what it is. It's your job to make it make sense.

Or you could totally rewrite the rules.

Or you could just play it really fast and loose. Balance isn't really all that important most of the time. If you feel the need to ignore the rules for the sake of realism, go ahead.

[BumblingBear]

The abstraction of the system is what it is. It's your job to make it make sense.

Or you could totally rewrite the rules.

Or you could just play it really fast and loose. Balance isn't really all that important most of the time. If you feel the need to ignore the rules for the sake of realism, go ahead.

While you're correct in how the rules are written, this game wasn't made to be die hard RAW either.  Fred has said so several times.

The particulars of how each game is run is up to that table.

I personally use miniatures for combat and usually have pre-existing patches of cover or cars and things sitting around.  A character standing behind a car gives them a permanent -1 or -2 to an opponent's attack rolls, for instance.  This forces NPCs and PCs to move around and change zones.

I like a more fluid battle where PCs and NPCs do more than just stand in one spot and duke it out.

It is not RAW to give borders to attacks, but it makes sense to me.  For instance, if someone is hiding behind a grocery aisle several isles away, you'd have to be really lucky to hit them.  This is where either moving zones or making a declaration that there is a mirror to spot shoplifters by the aisle so the attacker can see the defender comes in handy.

I state the positions of NPCs and PCs on a whiteboard with zones drawn on because it helps my players with immersion.  That way I don't get asked every round where everything is again.

[Sanctaphrax]

There's an example of rewriting the rules well.

It makes sense, changes the game in a positive way, and doesn't introduce new rules headaches (so far as I can tell). So more power to you.

[BumblingBear]

There's an example of rewriting the rules well.

It makes sense, changes the game in a positive way, and doesn't introduce new rules headaches (so far as I can tell). So more power to you.

Thank you!

I actually got the idea from the GM of the first DFRPG game I was in.  While I left the game and did not see eye to eye with the GM, I felt this was a fabulous house rule.

I have to give credit where it is due.

I don't come up with a whole lot of house rules myself - I am just really good at stealing other people's.