DFRPG In Other Time P... *AHEM!* Yadda-Yadda, Something About Claws and Stuff.

[Silverblaze]

Weighing in on claws: Ultimately; compels aside, cla2ws might as well be retractable for free.  Wizards get to live "forever" for free.  Cassandra's Tears is a free effect.  Human Form (which covers up a power until it is used) costs zero.  If human guise makes claws appear as they are not there, a player might as well be able to retract them.  In the case of fangs - plenty of vampires seem to be able to pull them back in in various literature.  Horns.... yeah I got nothin' for horns.  Human Guise should still work though.

I would also say that many critters with claws can justify a shapechange power (flesh mask, beast form, human guise, or an illusion power like glamours.)  That is why I think they should be retractable.  I know the power says otherwise.  i know it is technically a house rule of mine that I'd let them retract.  Maybe give claws +1 damage if they are not retractable?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weighing in on game design: it is clear rules and laws do not exist in a vaccuum or there would not be exceptions.  We wouldn't need lawyers, judges, and a jury.

I agree with Orladdin that making custom powers and stunts can devalue the originals.  However, they can and do add a lot also.

  I agree that Sanctphrax does ignore the other side of the equation about narrative effecting mechanics.

 I agree with this:

I have to say, it is irritating and coming off as rather arrogant for you to keep simply declaring that we're wrong, that we're "incorrect" and that you are absolutely right. It's your opinion, one that I, Orladdin, and others disagree with.

If you are creating a game.  You simply must take narrative into account or you isolate the people who value the narrative as much or more than the mechanics. That is bad business.  That is not good game design. As I've said before I have helped game designers do just this.  I got paid for it. I was asked to move halfway across a country to do this (help create balanced game rules and mechanics) and help write narratives also. They all (all is obviously a fallacy but the vast majority is not) agree narrative must be tended to in terms of designing powers.  It is fact, I'm sorry. 

If it makes you feel any better, I do feel game balance should sometimes (50-70%) trump narrative.  It cannot exist without the narrative or the setting or the game will be boring.  You'll just have a bare bones rules system.  That is not what DFRPG is. 

[Sanctaphrax]

I have to say, it is irritating and coming off as rather arrogant for you to keep simply declaring that we're wrong, that we're "incorrect" and that you are absolutely right. It's your opinion, one that I, Orladdin, and others disagree with.

Yeah, I can see how that would be annoying. But:

It's not an opinion, it's a belief. The difference matters.

Someone here is right and someone here is wrong.

You can do a lot more, and justify a lot more, with Omnipotent God to invoke from, than you can from a lot of other aspects. Even if each invoke is relatively equal in strength, you have an aspect that can be used to justify literally anything.

Nope. The GM has to find your explanation satisfactory, and they're under no obligation to let you invoke OMNIPOTENT GOD for everything. Or for anything, actually.

I could say almost the exact same thing about Tetris.

What is this I don't even.

Seriously, no idea what you mean.

You must have a very different definition of "hiding small objects...  ...in plain sight" than I do. 

You can feasibly hide any object, but you can't really hide a sword or a baseball bat or an semi-automatic .45 in your jacket pocket without the bouncer finding it when he frisks you (or casually glances at you, for that matter). 

Sure, Harry and Michael routinely "hide" their staff and sword, respectively, by stuffing them into a big duffel bag, but they'd never get that past Marcone's bodyguards...  not even by accepting a compel.  It doesn't have to be a compel...  It's as simple as the bouncer saying, "Sorry, you can't come in here with weapons," or "Hey, I'll need to look inside that duffel bag."

In fact, it SHOULDN'T be a compel, because simply carrying a weapon doesn't give the character an aspect to compel, unless some other character takes the trouble to generate that aspect using an appropriate action.

Suggest you read the trapping again, it doesn't work that way. It can hide small objects in plain sight, and it can be used to oppose any attempt to see something you've hidden.

And there do exist people in the world who don't search duffel bags for weapons.

Point A:  You're saying that the character's inability to hide their claws is balanced by the player's ability to be compelled. 

Point B: You're saying that having retractable claws causes you to miss out on this option.

Okay, this is the root of the problem. Because that's exactly what I'm not saying.

A character's inability to hide their Claws does not need to be balanced by anything. Because if you don't get Compelled, your inability to hide your Claws does jack and squat. The narrative fact of un-hideable Claws only enters the land of things that matter to the game's balance though Compels.

If your Claws are retractable, you don't get those Compels. For better or for worse.

Agree with you about the aspect, except that I'd say that the pushover GM in that scenario is breaking the game through his incompetence. Fortunately, only a little bit. Infinitely applicable invokes doesn't make the game unplayable or anything.

I agree that Sanctphrax does ignore the other side of the equation about narrative effecting mechanics.

You know, this sort of criticism is pretty useless. If I do something wrong, point it out so it can be fixed. General comments like this are just noise.

If you are creating a game.  You simply must take narrative into account or you isolate the people who value the narrative as much or more than the mechanics. That is bad business.  That is not good game design. As I've said before I have helped game designers do just this.  I got paid for it. I was asked to move halfway across a country to do this (help create balanced game rules and mechanics) and help write narratives also. They all (all is obviously a fallacy but the vast majority is not) agree narrative must be tended to in terms of designing powers.  It is fact, I'm sorry. 

I must be really bad at explaining myself.

Did I ever say anything about narrative being unimportant?

I hope not, because I don't think that.

It's important, it should just be kept from becoming mechanics.

There's a reason I include descriptions and flavour text in my powers. That stuff's great, it makes the game fun. But it should be kept separate from the rules, and it should be written so that it can be changed by individual tables.

Like I said before, the main problem with narrative as mechanics is that it screws up the narrative. The mechanics generally do okay, though there are exceptions.

[Mr. Death]

Yeah, I can see how that would be annoying. But:

It's not an opinion, it's a belief. The difference matters.

Someone here is right and someone here is wrong.

A belief is no more ironclad than an opinion. Just harder to change.

Nope. The GM has to find your explanation satisfactory, and they're under no obligation to let you invoke OMNIPOTENT GOD for everything. Or for anything, actually.

And the aspect OMNIPOTENT GOD can be used to justify a lot more than most aspects. Think about how many ways you can finish the sentence, "I'm an OMNIPOTENT GOD, so I'm going to..." as compared to "I'm a WIZARD OF THE WHITE COUNCIL, so I'm going to..." The former allows for many things the latter does not.

What is this I don't even.

Seriously, no idea what you mean.

The biggest balance weakness in this game is probably just the fact that some games will have many uses available for any given ability and others will have few.

I could easily say, about Tetris, that the biggest balance weakness in that game is just the fact that some games will have many uses available for a given piece, and others will have few.

Point is, "some games will have many uses for ____ and others will have few" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the narrative.

[Sanctaphrax]

A belief is different from an opinion in that it can be true or false. This distinction is extremely relevant in an argument.

Whether you're playing a social game or a violent one is narrative, and it affects the mechanics. Which is a shame, but not that big a deal really.

And like Orladdin said, what OMNIPOTENT GOD applies to depends on the GM. Personally, I'd not let it be invoked much.

You familiar with the term Magical Tea-Party? That's what the invocation system is, pretty much.

[Mr. Death]

A belief is different from an opinion in that it can be true or false. This distinction is extremely relevant in an argument.

Untrue. A belief is an opinion you have a lot of conviction in. The word refers to how much the believer, well, believes, not to the objective truth of the belief.

And like Orladdin said, what OMNIPOTENT GOD applies to depends on the GM. Personally, I'd not let it be invoked much.

What anything applies to depends on the GM--but some aspects are going to be able to produce more powerful and varied effects than others. Omnipotent God could be used to justify a much wider variety of effects (literally all of them), while the aspect "Bruised Knee" can't.

You familiar with the term Magical Tea-Party? That's what the invocation system is, pretty much.

In fact, I'm not. Could you elaborate?

[Sanctaphrax]

Okay, your definition of belief is very strange to me. Here's the one I'm using:

"An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists."

This is different from an opinion, in that it's not subjective. It's right or it's wrong.

Magical Tea Party is a term I've seen on a rather unpleasant forum called The Gaming Den. It refers to situations and games without real rules, which are essentially just freeform storytelling. The term is generally slightly derogatory, because MTP normally arises when the rules fail.

But it's not inherently a bad thing. It's just a convenient way to refer to something that works by pure fiat.

Aspects are pretty MTPish. They do what the GM thinks they ought to do, period.

One important thing about MTP is that it shuts down balance conversations. You cannot speak meaningfully about the mechanics of something that works by fiat.

[Mr. Death]

Okay, your definition of belief is very strange to me. Here's the one I'm using:

"An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists."

This is different from an opinion, in that it's not subjective. It's right or it's wrong.

The definition I'm using is confidence in something that cannot necessarily be proven; or an opinion for which you have a lot of conviction.

Calling it a belief, in my view, just means that you're not going to accept someone else's opinion on the matter. Since you "believe" your way is the right way, you won't consider our viewpoint.

I've always said, among the most dangerous things someone can do is know they're right.

[Sanctaphrax]

Let's not get hung up on the meanings of words. What I want to say is:

This is not a matter of opinion; someone is right and someone is not.

I have considered your viewpoint, and seeing the flaws in it has only strengthened my beliefs. It's possible that I'm wrong, but I really doubt it.

[Pbartender]

And there do exist people in the world who don't search duffel bags for weapons.

Right.  In fact, the vast majority of people in the world aren't going to stop you on the sidewalk and search your duffel bag for weapons.  This falls under the "you don't need to roll for it" guideline as presented under the heading "TAKING ACTION" on YS192.

I'm talking about the situations in which you actually do have to use the skill:  "...an interesting challenge with meaningful consequences."  Namely, trying to sneak weapons past those people who WILL search you for weapons.

Suggest you read the trapping again, it doesn't work that way. It can hide small objects in plain sight, and it can be used to oppose any attempt to see something you've hidden.

I've read it.  I've reread it.  You aren't telling me anything I didn't read the first time.  So, please explain to me how it doesn't work that way.  Because you simply stating it isn't really convincing me.

Explain to me how a character sneaks a sword into a nightclub, for example, when there's a bouncer at the door patting people down before they can go in.

[Mr. Death]

Let's not get hung up on the meanings of words. What I want to say is:

This is not a matter of opinion; someone is right and someone is not.

I have considered your viewpoint, and seeing the flaws in it has only strengthened my beliefs. It's possible that I'm wrong, but I really doubt it.

I strenuously object to the idea that you can declare yourself right, and others wrong, by framing your argument as a "belief," even putting aside that the word "belief" doesn't have anything to do with whether something is objectively true.

There are lots of things in the setting that are, in fact, balanced by the narrative, whether you want to accept it or not. If I'm not mistaken, there's a bit in the book where the writers discuss using FATE, and mention that it's a good system because it allows for the narrative to take precedence--i.e., that it is not a bad thing to focus on the narrative and let it guide your game.

Your perspective is that the sheer mathematical mechanics are above everything else--which is a fine, valid opinion to have, but not any more "right" than if I were insisting that the mechanics should take a back seat to the narrative.

[Sanctaphrax]

Your perspective is that the sheer mathematical mechanics are above everything else--which is a fine, valid opinion to have, but not any more "right" than if I were insisting that the mechanics should take a back seat to the narrative.

NO.

It's capslocked and red and bold and underlined because it's super important, not because I'm angry.

The math is not the most important thing. I enjoy playing with it, because I'm a math guy. But that's not why I try to keep the math and the story semi-separate.

My constant harping about narrative mechanics is about preserving narrative, not about preserving mechanics.

Because people will generally do whatever the mechanics tell them to do. If the mechanics tell you that concept X is unworkable, then nobody plays concept X.

That's why balance is important, to prevent narratives from being warped.

By making it a disadvantage to look weird, you tell people to look normal.

But if you keep all such disadvantages inside the Compel system, you remove those perverse incentives and make it totally okay to play a Flying Purple People Eater.

If I really just cared about math, I'd play more chess and fewer RPGs.

And they're right about the narrative taking precedence in FATE. One of the best things about this game is that that can be done entirely without breaking the rules. (I think that "how often the rules need to be bent or broken in order to have fun" is actually a good measure of how bad a game system is.)

Also, I'm not declaring myself right by saying that this is a belief. The earth being flat is a belief too. So are 2+3=5 and 2+2=5.

The point is that you can't just say "that's your opinion, this is my opinion". Someone's right.

And obviously, I think it's me that's right. But that's a separate matter.

@Pbartender:

You can't hide a sword during a full search. But if you're carrying a weapon while walking down the street and you come across someone who tries to guess whether you're armed, you can use your Deceit. That's not a contrived scenario: there are guides to spotting armed people in normal street settings.

You can also BS your way past a search, but that's probably a different trapping. Though distracting someone properly could mess up a patdown. They even mention that as a possibility in YS IIRC. Can't find it though, it was something about DISTRACTING BEAUTY. Sometimes I wish I had a searchable PDF, then I remember I could get one free and realize I can't be bothered.

PS: Personally, I'd say that a roll of 17 or so on Deceit could conceal an aircraft carrier. You just need to make sure that everyone looks in the exact opposite direction. Which is practically impossible, but only practically.

[Pbartender]

You can't hide a sword during a full search.

Agreed.  That's what I was getting at with the "hiding a small object in plain sight"...  A pat-down or a reasonably competent search turns all of your pockets, clothing and carrying cases into "plain sight", at least by my reasoning, it does.  You might be able to sneak a switch-blade past that, but not a sword.

Retractable claws would give you a chance to get the equivalent of a sword past a pat-down, or a full search.  It's a very situational benefit, but a concrete one.

But if you're carrying a weapon while walking down the street and you come across someone who tries to guess whether you're armed, you can use your Deceit. That's not a contrived scenario:

Agreed.  And sometimes they don't even have to be trying to guess... maybe a not-quite-right-detail just happens to catch the eye of an observant passer by.

You can also BS your way past a search, but that's probably a different trapping.

Agreed.  You're talking your way out of it, rather than trying to physically hide something.

Though distracting someone properly could mess up a patdown.

Agreed...  Invoking an aspect or using a complementary skill would cover that quite nicely.

They even mention that as a possibility in YS IIRC. Can't find it though, it was something about DISTRACTING BEAUTY. Sometimes I wish I had a searchable PDF, then I remember I could get one free and realize I can't be bothered.

YS20...  They use one of two sample aspects called "Always Armed" or "Distracting Beauty" along with a fate point to make a declaration that the character is armed, after they've already been searched.  A completely different, but absolutely nifty way of getting around searches.

PS: Personally, I'd say that a roll of 17 or so on Deceit could conceal an aircraft carrier. You just need to make sure that everyone looks in the exact opposite direction. Which is practically impossible, but only practically.

Yeah, see that's the sort of slippery slope I'm trying to avoid by using a little bit of common sense.  Sure, there's ways to hide truly immense things, but It reminds me of times playing D20 games, when a player would say something like, "Ha!  With all the extra bonuses, I just rolled a 67 to hide that aircraft carrier!"  And when you'd try to get them to explain how they hid it, they'd reply, "I dunno...  I rolled a 67."

I have no problem letting player-characters do extraordinary things, so long as they can come up with a reasonable (reasonable for the game, setting and genre, at least) explanation of how they're doing it...  That gets them a chance to try, at least.

I think we're mostly on the same page here...  We were just talking past each other.

[Sanctaphrax]

No, we're not on the same page.

See, if you have obvious Claws and they cause trouble in a pat-down, then that's a compel. So retractable-ness isn't actually useful.

(Claws is more like an omni-applicable Fists stunt than a weapon, really.)

PS: Concealing an aircraft carrier is actually quite reasonable. Crazy stuff happens, I've missed huge things before. And a roll of 17 is frickin' ridiculous, given that I doubt any mortal can get a skill above 6. So it can do stuff like that.

[Pbartender]

No, we're not on the same page.

Oh, stop it...  Now you're just being obstinate.  I agree with practically everything you said in your previous post.

See, if you have obvious Claws and they cause trouble in a pat-down, then that's a compel. So retractable-ness isn't actually useful.

How can it possibly be a compel, without a related aspect?

[UmbraLux]

PS: Concealing an aircraft carrier is actually quite reasonable. Crazy stuff happens, I've missed huge things before. And a roll of 17 is frickin' ridiculous, given that I doubt any mortal can get a skill above 6. So it can do stuff like that.

A 17 is easy for a group working together.  For a normal individual, it takes longer and approaches limits of what can be accomplished.

How can it possibly be a compel, without a related aspect?

Most power related compels will target your high concept.  All powers should stem from it.  Non power related items may simply be a declaration.  "That metal detector found your gun, want a fate point?" is an easy example.