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

[Sanctaphrax]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I said a few times before that I wasn't judging the rules or mechanics--just discussing them and getting a better understanding of them.

I maintain that it is impossible to participate in this sort of discussion without passing judgement.

Perhaps you should. I don't mean any disrespect, and I'm sure you're good at this, but remember the game was made by professionals at making games, while you are a young hobbyist. Believe me (and I can't believe I'm playing the wise-old-man card, but here we are...), I was a lot like you--sure that I was totally right, and totally unmoving. Humility is a good thing. Just consider that maybe the people who put it together had reasons for putting it together the way they did, and consider that you might not be right about how you can make the game better.

Funny thing is, I used to think the way you do. But with experience, I realized that being a professional isn't worth much.

In every RPG fandom I've seen, there have been at least a few fans who knew better than the writers.

And paid professionals write garbage all the time. Not so much in this game, though there are some headscratchers. But games like D&D, Pathfinder, Shadowrun, and Exalted have some truly cringe-inducing writing. Like, unbelievably bad. Go to boards dedicated to those games, they'd be glad to tell you.

I recall you saying that this is your first RPG with actual rules, so:

I hate to play the old man card back at you, but...trusting in someone because they are a professional just isn't a good idea in this business. Play more games and it will become impossible to deny that fact.

Often, the reason something is written the way it is written is: "the writer doesn't have the foggiest clue how this game works".

Oh, and there's one other thing. My certainty in my own ideas in not limitless. I can be convinced. People on this board have done it. Your arguments just weren't very good.

[eri]

Yeah, that's a valid perspective on hexing. But I think of it somewhat differently. To me, hexing is the result of random drift in physics resulting from the vagaries of a mortal mind commanding magic.

Hm, maybe. Perhaps there is some overlap between the two, like Mr. Death suggested.

The difference shouldn't matter too too much, but if it bugs you feel free to make whatever changes you want to what I wrote. I doubt I'll be able to help you much with that, though, because my historical knowledge is pretty weak.

I think I'll make my own actually. I should really have done that in the first place, but I didn't really have the time to do the research it deserves at the momement. (I still don't, so don't expect it untill maybe June.) Thank you for the effort though.

[Richard_Chilton]

And paid professionals write garbage all the time. Not so much in this game, though there are some headscratchers. But games like D&D, Pathfinder, Shadowrun, and Exalted have some truly cringe-inducing writing. Like, unbelievably bad. Go to boards dedicated to those games, they'd be glad to tell you.

I recall you saying that this is your first RPG with actual rules, so:

I hate to play the old man card back at you, but...trusting in someone because they are a professional just isn't a good idea in this business. Play more games and it will become impossible to deny that fact.

Often, the reason something is written the way it is written is: "the writer doesn't have the foggiest clue how this game works".

There are game designers and then there are the freelancer that the company hires.  There are companies that go for quality control, then there are ones where that sometimes leave in the notes between the freelancer and the line designer (seriously, I've seen them).

Evil Hat play tested the DFRPG game extensively and it was written by the "core people" as opposed to freelancers.  Even after the preview rules were released they were open to comments (hence the changes between the two editions).  The DFRPG isn't perfect, but it has had more thought put into it and more playtesting than most games ever get.

Richard

[Sanctaphrax]

@eri: Alright, sounds good.

@Richard: Yeah, we're comparatively lucky. The issues with DFRPG are not game-breaking and few of them are terribly difficult to fix.

[Mr. Death]

Funny thing is, I used to think the way you do. But with experience, I realized that being a professional isn't worth much.

Fair enough--but I would venture to say that the professionals who put together this game generally had their heads on straight.

In every RPG fandom I've seen, there have been at least a few fans who knew better than the writers.

And in every fandom I've seen, there are at least a few fans who think they know better than the writers, but are manifestly wrong. And they never realize it until there are hammer-marks in the tops of their skulls.

I should know, I've been one

I hate to play the old man card back at you, but...trusting in someone because they are a professional just isn't a good idea in this business. Play more games and it will become impossible to deny that fact.

Often, the reason something is written the way it is written is: "the writer doesn't have the foggiest clue how this game works".

As I said before, I have a hard time believing that is the case with this game. What I see is a game that's intended toward the "emulate the setting of the books" side of the spectrum more than the "make everything balanced mechanically" side. Not because they didn't know how the game works, but because they made a decision that fluff was as important as crunch, and occasionally moreso. You may consider this a detriment, but others don't.

Oh, and there's one other thing. My certainty in my own ideas in not limitless. I can be convinced. People on this board have done it. Your arguments just weren't very good.

Fair enough. But it wouldn't hurt you to exercise a little less certainty, at least where it comes to declaring people absolutely right or wrong.

What you see as "issues," those of us who are more into the setting than into RPGs in general (like me; I doubt at the moment that I'll ever play a different system, since I'm only playing this game because I already love the setting. But then if you'd asked me a couple years ago, I'd have told you I'd probably never play any dice games, this one included, so eh, who knows) are going to see as features.

[Sanctaphrax]

Fair enough--but I would venture to say that the professionals who put together this game generally had their heads on straight.

Generally. If I start complaining, it's probably one of the exceptions. I wouldn't be complaining otherwise, obviously.

As I said before, I have a hard time believing that is the case with this game. What I see is a game that's intended toward the "emulate the setting of the books" side of the spectrum more than the "make everything balanced mechanically" side. Not because they didn't know how the game works, but because they made a decision that fluff was as important as crunch, and occasionally moreso. You may consider this a detriment, but others don't.

There really doesn't have to be a conflict between setting emulation and mechanical balance. Slapping some reasonable restrictions on ACaEBG would actually have made the setting emulation better, now that I think about it. Having the "even ground between mortal and monster" power work really well with supernatural strength is just weird.

And making retractable Claws just as cheap as non-retractable ones wouldn't have damaged the setting at all. Nor would have writing the powers in OW properly. Nor would have making Orbius non-stupid.

All of those things are good for mechanical balance, though the Claws one is only important because of its narrative effects. And none of them is bad for the setting emulation.

Fair enough. But it wouldn't hurt you to exercise a little less certainty, at least where it comes to declaring people absolutely right or wrong.

With respect, I'm pretty sure I know what would hurt me better than you do. And that would hurt me.

What you see as "issues," those of us who are more into the setting than into RPGs in general (like me; I doubt at the moment that I'll ever play a different system, since I'm only playing this game because I already love the setting. But then if you'd asked me a couple years ago, I'd have told you I'd probably never play any dice games, this one included, so eh, who knows) are going to see as features.

Nope. The fact that Harry is mechanically speaking an idiot for not tossing out Orbius instead of his shield spell is a problem for everyone. The fact that Mouse is due to sloppy writing a social powerhouse is a problem for everyone. And the fact that it's impossible to tell which numbers to use with Incite Emotion is a problem for everyone.

I can't think of a single balance problem in this game that could reasonably be construed as a feature.

Wait, actually, there are a couple of purported problems with spellcasting that could be seen that way. But I'm not totally convinced that said problems are in fact problems.

[Mr. Death]

There really doesn't have to be a conflict between setting emulation and mechanical balance.

There doesn't have to be, but they're not always going to match up. Harry's a guy who could level a building in seconds if he was in a bad mood, and is capable of offensive, defensive, investigative, and other -ive feats that his mortal partners couldn't dream of. You can nerf all that to make it balance with a pure mortal, but eventually that takes away from the feel of the setting.

Slapping some reasonable restrictions on ACaEBG would actually have made the setting emulation better, now that I think about it. Having the "even ground between mortal and monster" power work really well with supernatural strength is just weird.

So you're saying instead of making it implicit, via the established use of the power in the setting and what we have of its write-up in the book, they should have made it explicit? Okay, that I can agree with, with the caveat that I think it's reasonable to assume what the intention was regardless.

And making retractable Claws just as cheap as non-retractable ones wouldn't have damaged the setting at all. Nor would have writing the powers in OW properly. Nor would have making Orbius non-stupid.

Maybe not damaged, but it wouldn't necessarily reflect the setting either, and I think that was the intention. They were answering the question, "Okay, vampires and ghouls have big scary claws, how does that affect their attacks?" more than, "How much refresh is adding Weapons:2 to fists attacks worth?"

As for Orbius, honestly, I think the problem there might be a misinterpretation. I don't recall seeing anything in its write-up precluding someone from rolling an action just to yank the stupid thing off.

With respect, I'm pretty sure I know what would hurt me better than you do. And that would hurt me.

With respect, few people really know what's good for them. I speak from experience here, because I think you're a lot like I used to be, and I didn't really change until reality hit me repeatedly over the head.

What I'm talking about is how it's been mentioned on a couple occasions how it's irritating and comes off as really arrogant when you act like an authority and declare one side of a discussion absolutely correct or incorrect. One such post, as I recall, got you a warning from the moderators. Or at least, the tone of the post did, which I think was borne out of your certainty.

That's what I'm talking about when I say that it wouldn't hurt you to be less certain, though perhaps I phrased it badly--not to be less certain, but not to act so certain. When you act as if you're the authority on things and start passing judgment (without having actual authority), it can make you come off as very abrasive, puts people on the defensive, and in general leads to more argument and complication than is necessary.

I know that's not what you intend, and you seem a decent fellow, but you rub people wrong a lot less if you allow that you may be wrong--even when you're sure you're right.

Nope. The fact that Harry is mechanically speaking an idiot for not tossing out Orbius instead of his shield spell is a problem for everyone. The fact that Mouse is due to sloppy writing a social powerhouse is a problem for everyone. And the fact that it's impossible to tell which numbers to use with Incite Emotion is a problem for everyone.

I'm not sure how Harry's an idiot for not using a spell that's practically an instant first-law violation. I mean, it's a straight-up murder spell. Mouse stops being a social powerhouse when you remember he's a dog and compel that--then again, dogs tend to be popular and not concerned about social stigma anyway. I could totally believe an intelligent dog running circles, so to speak, around a human when it comes to getting people on its side. I'm not sure what you mean about Incite Emotion, I thought the power was pretty clearly written.

At any rate, we probably should drop this and get back to the topic of the thread.

[ways and means]

If Susan can use a sword of the cross (while being infested by a unholy red court blood no less) I see no reason why another supernatural with faith cannot use one as long as their motives are pure so there is nothing in the setting saying the swords of a cross can't be wielded by a supernatural with strength.

As for retracting claws being non-canon well the never never is infinitely big and so the chances of a wolverine demon are incredibly high.

[Sanctaphrax]

There doesn't have to be, but they're not always going to match up. Harry's a guy who could level a building in seconds if he was in a bad mood, and is capable of offensive, defensive, investigative, and other -ive feats that his mortal partners couldn't dream of. You can nerf all that to make it balance with a pure mortal, but eventually that takes away from the feel of the setting.

Harry, in Storm Front, is inferior in combat to a properly built Feet In The Water mortal. (Said mortal might also be able to beat him in investigation, but that's pushing it a bit.) You don't need to nerf him, he's already balanced with a pure mortal.

He's actually a very weak character, what with having spent 1 Refresh on a stunt he hardly ever uses and 1 Refresh on a Power that he actively avoids using. Plus he has casting stats below Great, which is not optimal. And Great Endurance is a mistake, optimization-wise. And he's invested in multiple elements, which is punished by the system.

He's still much more badass than 99% of Chicago, though. Because he's Submerged, and therefore super awesome.

So you're saying instead of making it implicit, via the established use of the power in the setting and what we have of its write-up in the book, they should have made it explicit? Okay, that I can agree with, with the caveat that I think it's reasonable to assume what the intention was regardless.

Um, no. Strength + Sword is straight from the novels. Sword - Knight template is explicitly allowed in the rules. Assuming such intentions would not be reasonable.

Maybe not damaged, but it wouldn't necessarily reflect the setting either, and I think that was the intention. They were answering the question, "Okay, vampires and ghouls have big scary claws, how does that affect their attacks?" more than, "How much refresh is adding Weapons:2 to fists attacks worth?"

You can reflect big scary claws just as well, if not better, with Claws that just make your Fists attacks weapon 2.

As for Orbius, honestly, I think the problem there might be a misinterpretation. I don't recall seeing anything in its write-up precluding someone from rolling an action just to yank the stupid thing off.

Oh, you can roll an action to take the thing off. The problem is that if cast with enough power, nobody can manage to remove it. You know how we were discussing shields in the other thread? Orbius takes every weakness of a shield and turns it inside out. If you can cast a shield that reliably stops someone's attacks, you can almost certainly make them utterly helpless with Orbius.

Assuming, of course, that it does what it seems to do. Thanks to bad writing, it is not clear what it applies to.

With respect, few people really know what's good for them. I speak from experience here, because I think you're a lot like I used to be, and I didn't really change until reality hit me repeatedly over the head.

What I'm talking about is how it's been mentioned on a couple occasions how it's irritating and comes off as really arrogant when you act like an authority and declare one side of a discussion absolutely correct or incorrect. One such post, as I recall, got you a warning from the moderators. Or at least, the tone of the post did, which I think was borne out of your certainty.

That's what I'm talking about when I say that it wouldn't hurt you to be less certain, though perhaps I phrased it badly--not to be less certain, but not to act so certain. When you act as if you're the authority on things and start passing judgment (without having actual authority), it can make you come off as very abrasive, puts people on the defensive, and in general leads to more argument and complication than is necessary.

I know that's not what you intend, and you seem a decent fellow, but you rub people wrong a lot less if you allow that you may be wrong--even when you're sure you're right.

Glad you think I'm a decent fellow, but I'm not willing to fake uncertainty. If the answer to a question is clear and objective, I'll treat it that way.

I don't really have the stomach for a campaign of deception, even a well-intentioned one.

I'm not sure how Harry's an idiot for not using a spell that's practically an instant first-law violation. I mean, it's a straight-up murder spell. Mouse stops being a social powerhouse when you remember he's a dog and compel that--then again, dogs tend to be popular and not concerned about social stigma anyway. I could totally believe an intelligent dog running circles, so to speak, around a human when it comes to getting people on its side. I'm not sure what you mean about Incite Emotion, I thought the power was pretty clearly written.

Some people think that Incite Emotion lets you attack with Deceit +2, others think it lets you attack with Deceit. I subscribe to the latter view, because it's fairer. But I've got to admit that the other side has a decent RAW argument.

Say what you want about Mouse, applying Sacred Guardian to social attacks is obviously daft. But it's how the power works.

Choking someone out is probably the safest way to force them into unconciousness. Blunt force trauma frequently kills, controlled suffocation rarely does. Orbius would be less lethal than any combat spell in Harry's arsenal if used right.

Plus, that whole First Law thing is a compel. If that's your stance on why he shouldn't do it, you're basically giving him free FP all the time.

At any rate, we probably should drop this and get back to the topic of the thread.

Nah. If anyone wanted us to stop, they'd tell us to, right?

[eri]

Nah. If anyone wanted us to stop, they'd tell us to, right?

Uhm, did you miss this?

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?

Though I have really given up at this point.

[Mr. Death]

You can reflect big scary claws just as well, if not better, with Claws that just make your Fists attacks weapon 2.

For whatever reason, they decided to make the "big, scary" part in the power's write-up. Probably means they thought it was important to spell out.

Glad you think I'm a decent fellow, but I'm not willing to fake uncertainty. If the answer to a question is clear and objective, I'll treat it that way.

I don't really have the stomach for a campaign of deception, even a well-intentioned one.

It's not so much faking uncertainty as allowing the possibility that you might be wrong. Because no matter how sure you are, it's always a possibility. It's why I hedge my statements with "generally speaking," or "unless I'm mistaken," or something like that. It's a habit picked up from my profession, but it's a good one to get into anyway. It's been my experience that people don't take absolute certainty well--it makes them try to undermine it, find fault in it, and generally give you a harder time than if you'd said, "I'm reasonably sure," instead of "I'm absolutely sure you're wrong."

Some people think that Incite Emotion lets you attack with Deceit +2, others think it lets you attack with Deceit. I subscribe to the latter view, because it's fairer. But I've got to admit that the other side has a decent RAW argument.

Again, I'm not sure what the confusion is. The Lasting Emotion trapping says you get to add Weapon:2 stress to the Emotion-Touch trapping, and the Emotion Touch trapping says you roll from +2. Why would an upgrade make your rolls less effective? (i.e., easier to resist?)

Choking someone out is probably the safest way to force them into unconciousness. Blunt force trauma frequently kills, controlled suffocation rarely does. Orbius would be less lethal than any combat spell in Harry's arsenal if used right.

Correction: Choking someone out is the safest way to force someone into unconsciousness if you know what you're doing. Depriving someone of air for even 10-30 seconds more than necessary is very dangerous. Knocking someone unconscious in any way is very dangerous in real life.

Back to the topic, one thing to consider is how communications would be different--it might effect contacts rolls, for instance. Nobody's got any kind of reliable way to talk to someone right now--talking to someone outside of the immediate area is going to take hours at least, if not days or weeks.

[Silverblaze]

I'm impressed.

Someone changed the name of the thread due to derailment.  That should send a message. 

I'm also impressed how right people "know" they are.  Historically there have been a lot of saints and sinners all of which who had such hubris.  Mythology is full of such examples also.

Psychologically speaking: people are less likely to believe or value the statements of someone who is so absolutely sure they are correct. In time their opinions (my bad: facts) become less valued.

I've already played an old man card to trump both cards played so far.  (Who cares? Right?)

Fact of life:  There is just no convincing some people.  Regardless of facts; right or wrong, people are stubborn.   


hexing table:  one idea is pretty simple.  Find the table in the book.  Slide the technology vs conviction table either higher or lower for the time frame/setting.  It should take little time at all.

[DFJunkie]

From the WoJ thread:

Magic wasn’t always screwing up post WW2 tech.  Before WW2 magic had other effects.  It sorta changes slowly over time, and about every 3 centuries it rolls over into something else.  At one time, instead of magic making machines flip out it made cream go bad.  Before that magic made weird molls on your skin and fire would burn slightly different colors when you were around it. 

Depending on how far back you set your story Hexing might not even be an option.

[Mr. Death]

I'm also impressed how right people "know" they are.  Historically there have been a lot of saints and sinners all of which who had such hubris.  Mythology is full of such examples also.

Psychologically speaking: people are less likely to believe or value the statements of someone who is so absolutely sure they are correct. In time their opinions (my bad: facts) become less valued.

To quote the famous Dr. Thomas Lee Jones, "Imagine what you'll 'know,' tomorrow."

hexing table:  one idea is pretty simple.  Find the table in the book.  Slide the technology vs conviction table either higher or lower for the time frame/setting.  It should take little time at all.

Yeah, I believe that's kind of how they put it when adjusting for really really old wizards (like the one who's still put out about the civil war not going his way).

One thing to adjust for is just how much slower everything is. Nowadays, traveling 60 miles is an hour's trip (40 minutes, if you're a little nuts). Back before the 1900s, it was a day's trip. This is going to affect the scope of whole campaigns all the way down to what would be relatively simple actions nowadays.

[Pbartender]

I'm impressed.

Someone changed the name of the thread due to derailment.  That should send a message.

     (Not that I didn't make my own contribution to the derailment...)

Actually, I'd be terribly interested in opinions and suggestions for using DFRPG supernatural powers in a Science-Fiction setting...  It seems that many of the powers would be suitable for use as "psionic" powers, and most of the "monster" powers could be used for creating alien races and creatures.

One thing to adjust for is just how much slower everything is. Nowadays, traveling 60 miles is an hour's trip (40 minutes, if you're a little nuts). Back before the 1900s, it was a day's trip. This is going to affect the scope of whole campaigns all the way down to what would be relatively simple actions nowadays.

Of course, that'll make traveling through the Nevernever that much more useful.