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

[Sanctaphrax]

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

We agree about everything except the really important thing.

Anyway, as usual UmbraLux is correct and I disagree with him. I'm pretty strict with maneuvers for this sort of thing, so even a very skilled team probably won't manage difficulty 17.

But yeah, High Concept is the usual target for such compels. But sometimes there's another aspect that's better.

[Mr. Death]

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.

And to someone like me, narrative mechanics fall in line with the regular mechanics. It's all part of the setting and, therefore, part of the system.

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.

Not necessarily. As I've said before, there are plenty of people who won't just do what the math tells them is better.

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

No, you tell people that if you want an advantage, it comes with some kind of price.

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.)

I'd wonder just how much dissecting a canon power into its component trappings counts as bending and breaking

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.

Perhaps not directly. What you are saying is "It's a matter of belief, so someone has to be right, and someone has to be wrong. Since I'm right, you all have to be wrong."

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

Again: Says you.

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.

Unless you don't want to face a compel every time you want to do something in public. Compels aren't automatically something the player wants.

And on the subject of hiding battleships, this guy either rolled Deceit epically (with a lot of help) to do just that (and more), or he rolled Deceit epically to convince people he did.

[Sanctaphrax]

I'm not declaring myself right, though. I'm trying to prove that I'm right, with arguments unrelated to the belief thing. The belief thing is just there because I'm tired of people treating facts as opinions.

If you think I'm not right, try to prove I'm not. Or at least try to demonstrate that I might not be right.

Some rare people ignore what the rules encourage them to do, but most people don't. Hardly anyone makes a Wizard without decent ratings in the three casting stats, because the rules make it a horrible idea to do that.

A Wizard with terrible Discipline is actually a workable character concept. You have all the power and talent you need, but you lack the self-control to use it right. But the mechanics discourage that concept so it sees little play.

And if you make something a disadvantage you encourage people to avoid it if at all possible. Which is what I was trying to say.

As the game stands now, people will willingly look weird with no compensation. Making it into a disadvantage tells them to expect compensation. Which is bad, for reasons that I think are probably clear. (If they're not clear, I can explain.)

Dissecting a canon power is not bending or breaking the rules. It's following them exactly. Which can sometimes be a problem. Have you heard of Malicious Obedience?

It's basically that. Doing exactly what you're told in order to demonstrate the problems with what you're told.

And no, not everyone wants compels. But that's personal taste, not a mechanical thing. If you don't want to experience compels related to a certain thing, you remove that thing from your concept. If you do, you add it to your concept. The problem with Claws as written is that it makes that impossible in one narrow circumstance that hardly anyone cares about.

Oh, and I have no idea what:

And to someone like me, narrative mechanics fall in line with the regular mechanics. It's all part of the setting and, therefore, part of the system.

means.

[Pbartender]

Most power related compels will target your high concept.

Okay.  That I get.

Non power related items may simply be a declaration.  "That metal detector found your gun, want a fate point?" is an easy example.

Here's where I run into a problem...   The guard (or metal detector) ends up finding the weapon, regardless of the guard's Alertness skill or Investigation skill.  Furthermore, he finds it regardless of the player's Deception skill.

That's not necessarily a problem in of itself, but if you're going to make that sort of declaration every time that sort of situation turns up, you're likely top end up with some very frustrated players, because you've made one of their skills irrelevant...  And especially so, if they designed their character to be good at the task at hand.

Plus, how do the rules handle Declarations made by NPCs (I can't find anything about it at the moment)?  Normally, a player would get a free tag.  Does the NPC get a free tag.  And if he does, does the PC get a Fate point when it gets compelled?

From the players' point of view, it feels as if you are are forcing them to spend a Fate point to sneak a weapon past the bouncer, instead of letting them use their skills and stunts and powers to do it.  The former is passive and, regardless of the fate point reward, contributes to the player feeling helpless to the whims of the GM if done too often, while the latter is proactive.

The point being is that sometimes (most of the time?) a compel isn't necessary...  A simple opposed skill check suffices.

Either way, retractable claws can still be useful as they would either A) make it easier to succeed at the opposed skill check to keep them hidden, or B) give the player a good argument for avoiding a compel without spending a Fate point to do so.

[Orladdin]

I'm not declaring myself right, though. I'm trying to prove that I'm right, with arguments unrelated to the belief thing. The belief thing is just there because I'm tired of people treating facts as opinions.

If you think I'm not right, try to prove I'm not. Or at least try to demonstrate that I might not be right.

  But when we do, we're scoffed at for writing formal logic proofs. 

I am already convinced I have proven you wrong on a number of points, and everyone else seems to agree with me.  Now, I'm honestly trying to show you why you're wrong.  I truly think you are missing what we're saying and I want to help you see it.

Some rare people ignore what the rules encourage them to do, but most people don't. Hardly anyone makes a Wizard without decent ratings in the three casting stats, because the rules make it a horrible idea to do that.

A Wizard with terrible Discipline is actually a workable character concept. You have all the power and talent you need, but you lack the self-control to use it right. But the mechanics discourage that concept so it sees little play.

  This is absolutely wrong.  This is a perfect example of the Stormwind Fallacy. 

You don't need to have a sub-optimal skill arrangement to have a narratively interesting character.  Especially not in this game.  Having a low discipline skill would be dumb-- even if you wanted to play the character who lacks control in his spells.  Harry Dresden himself is this way.  Y'know how he handles it?  With an aspect.  He gets compelled to botch his spells.  It's not because Jim built his character sub-optimally.

And if you make something a disadvantage you encourage people to avoid it if at all possible. Which is what I was trying to say.

  Which is true to life.  Some things are disadvantageous.  That's why the world looks the way it does.  That makes the oddball characters even more interesting.  It's what allows the oddball characters to get compels for being weird.  If society (either in real life or in the game-world) was absolutely full of unique snowflakes, there would be no stigma against them to compel.

Officer: "Can you describe the perpetrator?"
Newsie: "I dunno; he was one'a those purple people eaters we've seen a million of lately.  They all look the same to me."

The problem with Claws as written is that it makes that impossible in one narrow circumstance that hardly anyone cares about.

  ... Actually, it appears (from this thread and others) that it's a circumstance that a lot of us seem to care about...

And no, not everyone wants compels. But that's personal taste, not a mechanical thing. If you don't want to experience compels related to a certain thing, you remove that thing from your concept. If you do, you add it to your concept.

  But you're ignoring the point I've made-- and at this point, I'm beginning to think you're trolling.  With the retractable claws you can do either one of these without a character modification.  You can just choose right now to do option A, get a compel; and then later choose to do option B and walk into the club unmolested.  You can make either choice as it suits you with retractable claws; whereas before you had to make a major character change.


_____

At this, I'm stepping out of the discussion.  I'm convinced my points have been made to any willing to listen.  Sorry to anyone who hasn't found my arguments helpful.

Good gaming.
_____

[ways and means]

  This is absolutely wrong.  This is a perfect example of the Stormwind Fallacy. 

You don't need to have a sub-optimal skill arrangement to have a narratively interesting character.  Especially not in this game.  Having a low discipline skill would be dumb-- even if you wanted to play the character who lacks control in his spells.  Harry Dresden himself is this way.  Y'know how he handles it?  With an aspect.  He gets compelled to botch his spells.  It's not because Jim built his character sub-optimally.

A character with a lot of raw power and low control should have strong conviction and poor discipline if you consider skills to have a narrative effect as well as a mechanical one. Now you could argue that skills shouldn't have a narrative effect so a guy with 5 in  needn't necessarily be well muscled especially if he had the "deceptively strong" aspect but some people will argue (not me by the way) that without bulging muscles the man couldn't possibly be that strong.  Now imagine you have a wizard with the "low self-control" aspect and a 5 in discipline both the aspect and apex skill suggest entirely different mutually exclusive things about the the character.

Now I personally have played (several times actually) a brainless smash it with a stick warrior who charges into every situation and who also happens to have 4 or 5 discipline several times  because discipline is the avoiding mental stress skill rather than because it made any sense for the character, so I don't personally see a problem but I can certainly appreciate why it would be a problem for others especially those people who moan about the fact that all DF PC's tend to be Olympic level athletes (+4/5 athletics).

[Mr. Death]

I'm not declaring myself right, though. I'm trying to prove that I'm right, with arguments unrelated to the belief thing. The belief thing is just there because I'm tired of people treating facts as opinions.

If you think I'm not right, try to prove I'm not. Or at least try to demonstrate that I might not be right.

It's more that I have a different perspective on the game and its relation to the narrative than you, I think, which isn't so clearly a "right or wrong" thing.

Some rare people ignore what the rules encourage them to do, but most people don't. Hardly anyone makes a Wizard without decent ratings in the three casting stats, because the rules make it a horrible idea to do that.

Not optimum? Sure. "Horrible" though? I disagree. Potentially more interesting, to me, is a wizard that doesn't have a lot of power, and so has to be creative with it, or a wizard without a lot of control, who has to be more careful and spend his or her fate points wisely.

And if you make something a disadvantage you encourage people to avoid it if at all possible. Which is what I was trying to say.

And giving something no disadvantage encourages more people to take it than rightfully should be.

Dissecting a canon power is not bending or breaking the rules. It's following them exactly. Which can sometimes be a problem. Have you heard of Malicious Obedience?

I think following the rules exactly would involve keeping a power with all the trappings attached to it, personally.

And no, not everyone wants compels. But that's personal taste, not a mechanical thing.

Then stop acting as if compels are automatically and always a good thing. You have repeatedly stated that if something causes a compel, that it cannot be a downside and is a good thing.

If you don't want to experience compels related to a certain thing, you remove that thing from your concept. If you do, you add it to your concept. The problem with Claws as written is that it makes that impossible in one narrow circumstance that hardly anyone cares about.

I believe most, if not all, of the powers say that you have to have an aspect or a high concept that can justify or represent its use. So, yes, if you've got razor sharp claws, I think you have to have an aspect, which can be compelled, to indicate why you have that power.

Oh, and I have no idea what:

And to someone like me, narrative mechanics fall in line with the regular mechanics. It's all part of the setting and, therefore, part of the system.

means.

I'm saying that to someone like me, ACAEBG's attachment to the sword, including its role in the world and associated narrative drawbacks and restrictions, is as much a mechanic for its power as its refresh cost and effect.

And I'm gonna make a bold statement here: Maybe the Dresden Files setting and game isn't supposed to have every character concept equally powerful and exactly balanced. Maybe wizards are supposed to be scary as hell and extremely powerful engines of arcane destruction. Maybe Pure Mortals aren't supposed to be able to stand one on one with beings that can outrun a sedan and then crumple it like aluminum foil. Maybe if you have claws, you're not supposed to look normal and be able to carry them around in plain sight.

Maybe power always comes with a price beyond the refresh cost--either to your humanity, to your ability to function in modern society, or just your ability to blend in.

Maybe, just maybe all of those things that are true in the setting of the books are meant to be true in the game set in the setting of the books.

[ways and means]

If were going to be really true to the setting then any supernatural with stealth and strength who manages to ambush a wizard gets to kill said wizard outright because wizards are incredibly brittle. That creatures with mythical level skills are nearly impossible to defend against (have any of you read how Butcher describes white court vampire Celerity and that's only at the supernatural level) , that wizards can carry on casting for more than a couple of minutes and finally any mythical strong beast that grapples a pure mortal can snap him in a blink of an eye. 

So if we are going to play it by the book series the game needs to be considerably more unbalanced than it already is and considerably more lethal.

[Mr. Death]

If were going to be really true to the setting then any supernatural with stealth and strength who manages to ambush a wizard gets to kill said wizard outright because wizards are incredibly brittle.

As I'm given to understand, that's pretty much a given to happen to any NPC that isn't going to take consequences anyway.

That creatures with mythical level skills are nearly impossible to defend against (have any of you read how Butcher describes white court vampire Celerity and that's only at the supernatural level), that wizards can carry on casting for more than a couple of minutes and finally any mythical strong beast that grapples a pure mortal can snap him in a blink of an eye.

Aside from the wizards casting for more than a few minutes, I'm pretty sure the rules do pretty much bear that out.

So if we are going to play it by the book series the game needs to be considerably more unbalanced than it already is and considerably more lethal.

One solid shot is enough to kill anything without supernatural toughness, and barring the plot armor of consequences, and some of those consequences will last a long, long time. That already seems considerably more lethal than other game systems I've seen.

[UmbraLux]

If were going to be really true to the setting then any supernatural with stealth and strength who manages to ambush a wizard gets to kill said wizard outright because wizards are incredibly brittle.

You can, it just takes preparation.  (i.e. Maneuvers and Declarations.)

That creatures with mythical level skills are nearly impossible to defend against (have any of you read how Butcher describes white court vampire Celerity and that's only at the supernatural level) , that wizards can carry on casting for more than a couple of minutes and finally any mythical strong beast that grapples a pure mortal can snap him in a blink of an eye.

Pretty sure all of this works in the game system also - simply takes using appropriate tactics.  Have your Mythic Speed vampire use hit and run attacks from cover.  Time is extremely flexible in game terms.  (A single exchange could be anything from near instant to several minutes or even hours.  Perhaps even days or weeks for some actions.) 

So if we are going to play it by the book series the game needs to be considerably more unbalanced than it already is and considerably more lethal.

I think it can be extremely lethal.  The only reasons I haven't killed a PC before now are concessions.    That said, the "Don't be a d!*k."  rule applies to GMs as much as players.  Perhaps more so since a GM can wipe the players anytime he feels like throwing arbitrarily high difficulty opponents at them.

That said, I do understand what you're saying and largely agree.  We may start out in the Dresdenverse but, as soon as we do something other than read from the book, we start diverging.  How much and how fast divergence occurs is up to individual group preference.

[Sanctaphrax]

Okay, I think it looks like everyone's getting tired of this.

The sad part, for me, is that I don't think anyone actually understands what I've been trying to say. Orladdin, Mr. Death, both of your posts demonstrate that you believe that I believe things I don't actually believe.

This is probably my fault, mostly.

So. Let me address the points that I think are important.

First, I'm not invoking Stormwind here. I'm using an example to demonstrate the power of mechanics to control behaviour. Wizards with Mediocre casting stats are mechanically discouraged, and as a result hardly anyone plays them. A similar effect will occur if you discourage something else mechanically. That is the entire substance of that argument.

Orladdin, I tried to address your point about retractable claws offering a choice about whether to be compelled or not earlier. But apparently I didn't do a good job, because you never took notice of my (attempted) rebuttal.

What I said is that you don't get to pick whether you get compelled. You make a character concept and then you get whatever compels are appropriate for that concept. Even self-compels depend on GM fiat. If you have the power to avoid a compel effortlessly, then you don't get that compel.

Also: I may have given the impression that I believe compels are a good thing. I don't. Compels are neither good nor bad, they're just a thing. Opening yourself up to them has its benefits perfectly negated by its drawbacks.

And Mr. Death, you seem to be suggesting that we bend/break the game deliberately, in order to control player behaviour. And you know what? That's okay. That's a standard part of game design.

But I see no sensible reason to bend/break the game against people with weird natural weapons. That sort of thing should be reserved for when it's really necessary and when it can be done elegantly.

Is that all clear now?

PS: Does anyone actually care this much about Claws? This has been about deeper principles, I thought.

[Silverblaze]

"PS: Does anyone actually care this much about Claws? This has been about deeper principles, I thought."

Not me.

I don't see the big deal with that power in particular. Easy fixes per table.

[Pbartender]

Okay, I think it looks like everyone's getting tired of this.

The sad part, for me, is that I don't think anyone actually understands what I've been trying to say. Orladdin, Mr. Death, both of your posts demonstrate that you believe that I believe things I don't actually believe.

This is probably my fault, mostly.

It's part of of what sucks about trying to debate over the internet...  It's slow, and there's practically way to use the usual body language to convey contextual attitude.  I know I often feel the same way.

First, I'm not invoking Stormwind here. I'm using an example to demonstrate the power of mechanics to control behaviour. Wizards with Mediocre casting stats are mechanically discouraged, and as a result hardly anyone plays them. A similar effect will occur if you discourage something else mechanically. That is the entire substance of that argument.

Yep, exactly...  And there nothing necessarily wrong with that.  That's why employers have a list of experience and education requirements when they post a job opening.  If you are going to do a job professionally, you should be good at what you do.  That's why I've never had a problem with my players doing a little bit of optimizing -- I expect them to, to a certain degree.  In most games, they are professional heroes and adventurers.  They should be good at what they do.  If they weren't, they'd stay home and be NPCs.   

What I said is that you don't get to pick whether you get compelled. You make a character concept and then you get whatever compels are appropriate for that concept. Even self-compels depend on GM fiat. If you have the power to avoid a compel effortlessly, then you don't get that compel.

Also: I may have given the impression that I believe compels are a good thing. I don't. Compels are neither good nor bad, they're just a thing. Opening yourself up to them has its benefits perfectly negated by its drawbacks.

From my point of view, it seemed like you were over-emphasizing compels as the only way to make a troublesome situation happen for the players -- in this instance, claws or a weapon being noticed by a bouncer. 

But, then...

And Mr. Death, you seem to be suggesting that we bend/break the game deliberately, in order to control player behaviour. And you know what? That's okay. That's a standard part of game design.

But I see no sensible reason to bend/break the game against people with weird natural weapons. That sort of thing should be reserved for when it's really necessary and when it can be done elegantly.

That's speaks to what I was trying to get at earlier:  In my view, at least, Aspects are there, purposefully, to allow the players and GM to break/bend the game deliberately in order to control player (or NPC) behavior...  Especially when it comes to compels.  Compels are there to try to force a player into a certain type of behavior, or to avoid a certain type of behavior.  They concretely reward the player when they do what you what them to, and penalize them when they don't. And you know what? That's okay.

But, by the same respect, I saw no reason to compel a character with weird natural weapons, unless it's really necessary and can be done elegantly.

Is that all clear now?

Clearer, at least...   

PS: Does anyone actually care this much about Claws? This has been about deeper principles, I thought.

I don't, at least...  For me, it was partially about "What's the big deal about changing the fluff on a power, so long as the mechanics stay the same?" and then later trying to understand "How, when and why should we be using compels?"

[eri]

If you're all bored of the argument and/or actually in agreement, do you think it would be possible to get back to discussing the original subject? *hopeful* Because I always get a bit disappointed when I see a subject with a title that really interests me not be about that subject at all...

Say for instance: When would you say the "technology and magic don't mix" thing started?
and what changes do you think would be necessary to the system to set the campaign in 1875 and what would you change (if any) to set the campaign in 1960s?

[Pbartender]

Say for instance: When would you say the "technology and magic don't mix" thing started?
and what changes do you think would be necessary to the system to set the campaign in 1875 and what would you change (if any) to set the campaign in 1960s?

I would suspect that it would have been something of a gradual change, but two key inventions would have served as the impetus for the change...  The steam engine, and electricity.  It'd be rather interesting to play in a setting and time period during that transition.