The One Ring DFRPG Stats

[Silverblaze]

Cross genre/media/universe statting doesn't really work.  There is a vast difference in the power level of items/beings in each individual creators world.

Biases are a HUGE issue when doing so (statting things like this). 

Not many people in a group will agree on any attempt at statting such things within one universe let alone trying to "cross pollinate" as it were.

[Sanctaphrax]

I am really losing my respect for the term "plot device". Here's why:

It doesn't mean anything.

All NPCs are ultimately devices used in service of the plot. The only things in the game that aren't plot devices are the player characters.

And X is always the number the plot requires, whether X is the complexity of a Mab-killing ritual or the Craftsmanship skill of the local car mechanic.

But maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe the meaning of "plot device" isn't actually related to the meaning of the meanings of the words "plot" and "device".

It seems to me that people often use the term for things that cannot or should not be given stats.

But if that's what it means, then it is massively overused.

The aspect system of this game can model literally any effect. When Michael kills a capital-D Dragon, it's can be because that dragon was Compelled to be vulnerable to him. And when your magic ring causes a country to bow to you, it can be an Invocation for Effect.

Neither of those effects is too big to stat. In fact, they are both ludicrously easy to stat. It's easier than writing stats for a random goon.

So why the heck are people so quick to call big things unstattable?

Is it some bizarre echo of "if you stat it, they will kill it"? A fear that giving stats to something will diminish it?

That's not a rhetorical question. I'm really asking.

PS: I don't deny that big things are usually harder to stat than little ones. Aspects are a very crude way to model specific effects. So if you want to write up gods, you better write some god powers first. And that's not easy. (Which is why I haven't written Mab stats yet.) But it is possible. (Which is why I probably will write Mab stats one of these days.)

[arthurfallz]

I am really losing my respect for the term "plot device". Here's why:

....That's not a rhetorical question. I'm really asking.

PS: I don't deny that big things are usually harder to stat than little ones. Aspects are a very crude way to model specific effects. So if you want to write up gods, you better write some god powers first. And that's not easy. (Which is why I haven't written Mab stats yet.) But it is possible. (Which is why I probably will write Mab stats one of these days.)

I don't disagree. Anything can be statted up. But some things are so much bigger than the characters, that Stats are beyond... pointless. Take, in this example, Sauron and any of the other greatest Maia. He's a vertiable God, but he could be taken down by veritable demi-gods as well. You could stat him, but in the scope of most stories, there's no need. In fact, giving him Stats leads to discussion (typically) of just what nasty combinations of spells that could be used to destroy Sauron from the armchair in Bag End.

The One Ring is right at the threshold - it was so evil and dangerous, the wisest were terrified to touch it. How do you stat that without making it instantly toxic to Frodo? That is the difference between the Sword of Michael, or a Denarian Coin, and the One Ring. Scope. To each their own, of course, but One Ring writeups that don't, in fact, do that artifact justice are doing a disservice to the narrative of their source story.

[Becq]

I agree; it's probably not too often that something is truly unstattable.  If you can pin down a definition of its capabilities, you can probably come up with stats.  So it's probably best to talk not about whether it can be statted, but whether it should be.

In the case of the One Ring, you might say that the very best reason to not stat it (ie, keep it as a 'plot device') is that that is exactly what Tolkien did.

In the Hobbit, it was nothing more than a magical ring that made you invisible.
Then as the FotR opens, it is revealed that it is a ring of unspeakable power, one that is capable of ... what?  Well, Tolkien was none too specific, but it granted control over the other Rings of Power.  As the story unfolds, we learn that the One Ring has an inherent intelligence of sorts, and can sway the will of the bearer and others nearby.  And it doesn't turn you invisible, it moves you into a sort of astral space which works like invisibility as far as most are concerned, but not with respect to Ringwraiths.  And the Ring can make the bearer more powerful in other ways, too, if worn by someone who can tap that power.

I think there's a great reason Tolkien didn't insert a stat block for the One Ring into the Hobbit (I'm not counting 'third-party' RPGs here, which make great references but aren't 100% LotR).  By rationing information, the plotline unfurled in a more interesting way.  (Or maybe he hadn't fully planned out the LotR series yet, but we'll ignore that for now.)

If you give an item stats, then it becomes nothing more than a tool.  Possibly a powerful tool, but a tool nonetheless.  If you make it a 'plot device', then it becomes, in effect, an inanimate NPC ... which is exactly how something like the One Ring should be treated, in my opinion.  It's still a tool, but now its a tool used to drive the plot, rather than mere gear.

(But by all means, go right ahead and write up stats.  Then invoke its Plot Device aspect to add or change it as needed by the plot, as often as necessary!)

[ALurker]

But here's a counter:
Whenever Jim lists "beings that can take Mab on" he includes Ferrovax.  Note that he also includes the enter White Council, Drakul, and a few others, but Ferrovax is there.  Ah - found it - the post is at http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,11012.msg462610.html#msg462610.

Why is Ferrovax such a big deal? Because he's a greater dragon.  Now he used to have brother, name of Sirothrax, who did various things - but he doesn't have that brother anymore.  Why? Because that brother ran into a sword.  A Sword of the Cross, but a sword just the same.

That's right - a sword with comparability low refresh held by a Knight of the Cross kill the brother of something that could take on Mab.  If a Sword of the Cross could do that, then why wouldn't a Sword be able to take on Mab?

But statting them out is a bit like statting the One Ring (see? I got back on topic).  A plot device is a plot device.  Giving a plot device stats is meaningless.  It's like trying to work out the shifts needed to do the spell the Red Court tried.  Weeks of prep time at the center of ley lines with dozens (if not hundreds) of human sacrifices - how many shifts would that be? If you call that number X you'll see that it's the same number of shifts needed by a spell to kill Mab (there's some speculation that Donar Vadderung is part of Dresden's family tree and was the real target) and the same number of shifts that One Ring could produce.

For X = the amount that plot requires.

Richard

Two comments: Sithrovax was the weakest of the Dragons and the Swords of the Cross explicitly have different levels of power depending on who they are fighting and aren't just swords, they are direct channels of the power of the White God and his servants (their stats in the game only sort of reflect this variability). Against a normal human they are little more than swords, against the entirety of the Red Court one allowed an Archangel to gain control of the wielder for a short period of time and channel power quite a bit of power through them. More than likely Michael's fight vs. Sithrovax could more accurately be describe as an Archangel controlling Michael's body vs. a Dragon.

[ways and means]

Personally I don't think the one ring is properly stat able because of two reason first we have no idea what its actual power is beyond that it should be high refresh and incredibly powerful (its powers as we know them are nebulous), secondly its an item that is ruled by plot in that it has exactly as much power as the plot demands so it may it may only grant 3-4 refresh worth of power to Frodo and Bilbo but it could easily be worth a hundred refinement for Gandalf or Radaghast. So any given stats are likely to be wrong and even if they aren't wrong in one part of the plot they will be wrong in another.

Personally I also don't like stating absolutes for example Perfect Defense/ Physical Immunity and Perfect Attacks (ones that will always hit and/ or will always kill. I know these can be statted (Exalted/Dresden Files) but I don't like that they can close down one element of a game completely and I don't like the fact that you can't really give such powers a shift value. So I think things like perfect killing weapons though they can be statted they shouldn't because someone will want to use them in game.   

[Belial666]

The way I statted the One Ring, its power depends upon the wielder in several ways. First, the wielder may never attempt to actually use its powers. Secondly, some of the powers depend on opposed skill use and thus a relatively weak wielder could not use them while a relatively powerful one could - so the more powerful the wielder the greater the ring's power.
As for the power of the Ring, I gave it the ability to make ppl invisible or dominate other ringbearers but its greatest ability is to arrange coincidences - i.e. allow the wielder to dictate the plot. That makes the One Ring as powerful and terrifying as the plot itself can be. Don't like the enemy company marching across a mountain? You can plot a natural snowstorm in their path every scene for the fun of it. Want to build a massive and massively powerful tower? You can plot that your workers find precisely the right materials for it in the first few hours of delving and that they work perfectly well together for every scene thereafter till completion.

[arthurfallz]

The way I statted the One Ring, its power depends upon the wielder in several ways. First, the wielder may never attempt to actually use its powers. Secondly, some of the powers depend on opposed skill use and thus a relatively weak wielder could not use them while a relatively powerful one could - so the more powerful the wielder the greater the ring's power.
As for the power of the Ring, I gave it the ability to make ppl invisible or dominate other ringbearers but its greatest ability is to arrange coincidences - i.e. allow the wielder to dictate the plot. That makes the One Ring as powerful and terrifying as the plot itself can be. Don't like the enemy company marching across a mountain? You can plot a natural snowstorm in their path every scene for the fun of it. Want to build a massive and massively powerful tower? You can plot that your workers find precisely the right materials for it in the first few hours of delving and that they work perfectly well together for every scene thereafter till completion.

But... The Ring doesn't have that power! It has the power of command, for sure, and makes mortals invisible (this is important - remember Tom Bombadill wasn't affected at all by the ring, though I'm sure Elves would be). The grand coincidences that happened throughout The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are attributed, really, to heroic luck and the subtle plans of Illuvitar (which both Gandalf and Elrond hint at). The great works Sauron attributed were evidence of his personal power. Now, it's cool to make a Ring that turns people invisible, is evil, controlling and helps shape the bearer's reality to their whims, but that isn't the One Ring.

[Becq]

Yeah, I don't see any capability that Bilbo or Frodo gained to dictate plots, beyond Bilbo's ability to turn invisible and Frodo's ability to scream "HEY, RINGWRAITHS!  I'M OVER HERE!!!  AND YOU'RE FIERY EYE DRESSES YOU FUNNY!!11!eleventy-one!"  Instead, it's the Ring (basically an NPC) that gets to dictate coincidences.

Like, for example, "Hey Isildur, funny story: you know how that Ring of Power resized itself to fit perfectly on your finger when you took possession of it?  Well, it just randomly slipped off your finger into the water while you were trying to escape.  Hey, I guess you aren't invisible any more, eh?  What a shame..."  And "Deagol, through the river water -- which is nearly opaque with silt -- you see something tiny sparkling in the river bottom, where it has apparently just become unburied after 2500 years or thereabouts.  Might be worth looking at."  And so on.

In other words, it's a wandering plot device that is fully capable of making extremely unlikely coincidences occur, when necessary to drive the story.

[Silverblaze]

Unstattable: likely a falsehood

I agree that statting things like gods serves no purpose in the scope of 80-99% of games.

I.E. as Arthurfallz said - pointless.  More like a "look what i did factor" that in my opinion just promotes high power games or power gaming.  "Yeah my character chains Mab to a throne alongside Titania Conan style! Look how 1337 my character is/was!"

Also the following:

If I stat it rules lawyers will tell me how I can use it or what it can do.
If I stat it it can be killed easier.
if I stat it it will be more intimidating. "Why are you using something that can throw 35 shift evocations in this game we have 7 refresh!"


Things with much over 30 well spent combat related refresh is superfluous.  You don't need that much to have a badass character.  10-15 well spent refresh is deadly.  So why have things with 100 refresh?

(I assume most badass wizards {council level} to have something like 30-60? and things like demigods, D-dragons, and gods to have 70-100+?  This is pure speculation, but I figure "plot device" is A] over used, sure, and - B] a way to say something has more refresh than is sensible... but also ; C] a way for the GM to simply say this happens, I don't need stats or a roll.)

Doctor Ian Malcom (Jeff Goldblum) from Jurrasic Park said it best: "People have been trying so hard to find out if they could...they never stopped to think if they should."

[Becq]

Agreed.  Another likely result to giving an artifact-quality item stats is that it provides a known threshold to overcome it.  If you give the One Ring -60 refresh worth of powers, then some enterprising young mage is going to start thinking about how -60 refresh is basically 120 shifts, and with enough time generating declaration-based aspects, it should be possible to come up with a 120+ complexity ritual to destroy it.  Or better yet, why not reforge it via a crafting-based transformation effect into an artifact that is every bit as powerful, but serves him, rather than Sauron!  That would only be ... oh, say 145 complexity or so, which means another few hours spent baking Mana-Balls(TM) (They're magically delicious!).  Or...

[Tedronai]

Or better yet, why not reforge it via a crafting-based transformation effect into an artifact that is every bit as powerful, but serves him, rather than Sauron!  That would only be ... oh, say 145 complexity or so, which means another few hours spent baking Mana-Balls(TM) (They're magically delicious!).  Or...

Sounds like a great idea to me.
And any GM that lets a player pull off a 145 complexity ritual without the ritual itself being the central theme of an epic story?
Deserves  the consequences to his game.

[Sanctaphrax]

There are certainly consequences to statting stuff up, but there are also consequences to leaving stuff statless.

Without stats, the GM is basically making stuff up as he goes along. This can be difficult for the GM and annoying for the players. More importantly, it isn't really possible to run a conflict with something unless you stat it.

And it's my firm belief that it should be possible to run conflicts with the gods. Here's why:

Killing Mab as a Submerged character is probably not possible. But beating or at least challenging her in an argument isn't. (Harry does it).

And overpowering Sauron as a Feet In The Water character is almost certainly impossible. But you can totally kill him if you hit his weakness. (Frodo did it.)

Part of the reason for having stats is so that you can see what is possible and what isn't.

So even if there's no point in giving Mab's combat abilities, her social skills and stunts are valuable.

And personally, I think that anyone trying to fight Mab deserves more than death by GM fiat. Death by rigorously-defined mechanics is much more palatable for me.

So...that's why I think that gods ought to have stats. Does that sound reasonable?

PS: Tedronai is totally right about high-level rituals. The game consistently presents 25-shift rituals as impressive. 145 shift rituals are supposed to be truly awe-inspiring.
PPS: The One Ring's plot-altering stuff is mostly just compels.
PPPS: I don't much like perfect effects myself, but sometimes they are the only way to go.

[Cyberchihuahua]

Sounds like a great idea to me.
And any GM that lets a player pull off a 145 complexity ritual without the ritual itself being the central theme of an epic story?
Deserves  the consequences to his game.

Ascension ritual, anyone?

[arthurfallz]

I do think, if a person were to base a game off the inclusion of The One Ring (like some fun attempt to run through the plot and see how it would go with different characters, or just the same characters but their own choices), you would need to have certain things thought out. Like how the Ring causes Stress (which it clearly does at points, as Frodo becomes worn by carrying the burdern of the Ring), and how the invisibility functions, etc.

But as for the nitty gritty? Hell, even Elrond and Gandalf didn't understand how the One Ring functioned. It would be, in a similar vein, to statting up Excalibur if you planned on using it as a central theme for the story (like, for example, in the movie Excalibur). It should have some tangible stats, for sure, but a lot of the more "plottish" stuff should be left to... well, the plot.