Help Me Stat "Runic Bullets" Item of Power!

[Mr. Death]

Seriously, though, your objection has no real connection to the power. It just has to do with this item being an IoP. Which is fine, but not what I'm talking about at all.

Actually, it has to do with the power being available without the baggage, limits, and responsibilities that restrict its use as part of the Sword of the Cross's powerset.

Incidentally, your comment about baggage is exactly what I'm arguing against. Baggage comes in the form of compels, which are good. If a power is too strong and needs something to balance it, it should cost more. It shouldn't have some kind of narrative drawback. Because narrative drawbacks do not work in this game.

Yes, they do. The inability of Claws to be concealed without a shapeshifting power is a narrative drawback. The fact that a Knight of the Cross can't use his sword for selfish and petty reasons is a narrative drawback. Narrative drawbacks are the fuel for compels.

Compels aren't just be free fate points--there should be significant bite to what the character has to go through after accepting that fate point. A good compel should make the player have to really consider whether they should take it or buy it off. That bite is what I'm referring to as a drawback or restriction--the serious narrative complication that results from the aspect being compelled.

The Sword of the Cross's power is inextricably linked with its narrative role, and the kind of character you can give that power to. You wouldn't have a Han Solo type swinging around Fidelacchius. Or to be more accurate, you couldn't have one of the Swords and keep using it if you're that type of character--either Han Solo loses the sword the first time he tries to use it to get out of his debt to Jabba, or Han Solo develops into the type of character that can wield a Sword of the Cross.

The powers in the book restrict and help define what narrative role a character has. It's not just about the exchange of refresh points for effect.

That's my objection to breaking it down to "3 refresh, a fate point to use": It's taking what, in the fiction, is a rare, extremely powerful artifact that's bound to a set of values and actions, and takes a very specific kind of character to wield, and keeps almost all the power without any of the narrative restriction associated with it.

[Sanctaphrax]

Compels aren't meaningless, but they aren't bad either. They aren't drawbacks. So narrative drawbacks aren't drawbacks at all in this game. Which means that they aren't important to the game's balance. Which means they can be freely added and removed.

[Orladdin]

Ok, Sanc, you're wrong here.  As Mr. Death pointed out, they very strongly do apply to the setting, and should (with a half-decent GM) have bite in-game. 

As far as your last post, I'll point out your logical failure; bold is mine:

Compels aren't meaningless, but they aren't bad either.  Ok, so: Compels have meaning.  Compels are good.
They aren't drawbacks. Ok.  Compels != drawbacks.
So narrative drawbacks aren't drawbacks at all in this game. <-- here.  Thus far, you have not posited points to reach this conclusion.  All we know so far in your proof is that (Compels != drawbacks). 
Which means that they aren't important to the game's balance. Example of Petitio Principii
Which means they can be freely added and removed. Not Q.E.D.

Maybe you weren't going for a logical argument here, but if you were, you didn't build it correctly.

[Mr. Death]

Compels aren't meaningless, but they aren't bad either. They aren't drawbacks. So narrative drawbacks aren't drawbacks at all in this game. Which means that they aren't important to the game's balance. Which means they can be freely added and removed.

Put it this way: Would you let someone have one of the Swords and use it regularly in contrast to its purpose without suffering the consequences of losing the sword and risking its destruction?

If not, then why would you let someone make an item functionally identical to the sword without even similar consequences restricting its use?

The power to ignore at will nearly any toughness power is very powerful. The inability to use that power however you want (aspects and compels) is a balancing factor on that power.

[Silverblaze]

Narrative drawbacks have no drawback? I call BS.

Just because I get a fate point do I want my character to be blamed for everything?  I bet Dresden would prefer Charity to like him and stop hating on him.

I bet he'd prefer Murphy trust him.

And so on.  I see plenty of drawback for the character.

As someone who was tricked into harming an innocent with his Sword - I can tell you compels or not it still sucked.  Good story; don't get me wrong, but my character would prefer to have a fully functional sword, the others Knights' respect and the player would like to still be a cuisinart in battle.

No drawback my rear-end

[Sanctaphrax]

@Silverblaze: Drawback for the character yes. They should have that. But from the player's perspective, compels are good. I don't care if my character is happy, he's not me. In fact, I recently self-compelled to drink a potion of despair.

@Mr. Death: No, of course I wouldn't allow that. I'd compel 'em left and right, and they'd both benefit and suffer as a result.

If someone wanted to use ACAEBG with some other justification, though, I'd let them. And the other justification would not have to be a burdensome one. Something as simple as "I'm Death's son and I can kill anything" would be enough for me.

If this isn't balanced, the fault lies in the power and its cost.

@Orladdin: I wasn't really going for rigour, so I left some premises unstated. Add:

-Narrative drawbacks manifest only through compels.
-So long as the mechanical structure of the game remains intact, the narrative can be altered freely without worrying about the consequences.

I kinda thought that those went without saying, but I guess not.

[Mr. Death]

@Silverblaze: Drawback for the character yes. They should have that. But from the player's perspective, compels are good. I don't care if my character is happy, he's not me. In fact, I recently self-compelled to drink a potion of despair.

I think this here is the crux of the disagreement we have here. You're looking at it purely from a player's perspective, while we're (or at least, I'm) considering the narrative with most every character decision I make.

@Mr. Death: No, of course I wouldn't allow that. I'd compel 'em left and right, and they'd both benefit and suffer as a result.

If someone wanted to use ACAEBG with some other justification, though, I'd let them. And the other justification would not have to be a burdensome one. Something as simple as "I'm Death's son and I can kill anything" would be enough for me.

If this isn't balanced, the fault lies in the power and its cost.

There's the thing, though. The powers of the Sword are a package deal with the aspects of the sword, and the role associated with the sword. You don't think it's unbalanced to have one character with a -3 refresh cost (plus fate point) power that is significantly restricted in what his character can and cannot smite, and another character with almost the same -3 refresh (plus fate point) power that he can use on anything without consequence?

The aspects and narrative role of a power are as important to its balance as the fact that it lets you do X for Y amount of refresh.

[Zorthrip]

There's the thing, though. The powers of the Sword are a package deal with the aspects of the sword, and the role associated with the sword. You don't think it's unbalanced to have one character with a -3 refresh cost (plus fate point) power that is significantly restricted in what his character can and cannot smite, and another character with almost the same -3 refresh (plus fate point) power that he can use on anything without consequence?

The aspects and narrative role of a power are as important to its balance as the fact that it lets you do X for Y amount of refresh.

It could be said that the power requires a high concept that at least in part ties to his being an agent. Additionally, I imagine that if the supernatural community were to discover a organization of mortals that were not only unaffected by the "global denial" that everyone else seems to be under, that many of them would dedicate themselves to the destruction of said organization. That make the possession of the power and the high concept potentially make that person a target if they did not keep the secrecy close to their chest. This could be the type of narrative limiter you are saying should be needed.

[Mr. Death]

That would do it, yeah, but it still doesn't address my other point, explaining why the power is A. so powerful as to affect a wide range of totally unrelated monsters' weaknesses (everything from elves, to vampires, to demons) and B. finicky enough that it sometimes just doesn't work ("Didn't that gun blow right through an Ogre yesterday? Why can't it scratch this troll?" "I ran out of fate points.")

The former suggests that whatever powers the gun is extremely powerful, the latter suggests that whatever powers the gun has some kind of consciousness and agenda that the user might sometimes not align with. Both together suggest this would be an item in short supply, or even unique--remember that the White God only has three of them to hand out.

[Silverblaze]

I think this here is the crux of the disagreement we have here. You're looking at it purely from a player's perspective, while we're (or at least, I'm) considering the narrative with most every character decision I make.

No, I'm totally with ya.  It's a We're.

[Orladdin]

That would do it, yeah, but it still doesn't address my other point, explaining why the power is A. so powerful as to affect a wide range of totally unrelated monsters' weaknesses (everything from elves, to vampires, to demons) and B. finicky enough that it sometimes just doesn't work ("Didn't that gun blow right through an Ogre yesterday? Why can't it scratch this troll?" "I ran out of fate points.")

The former suggests that whatever powers the gun is extremely powerful, the latter suggests that whatever powers the gun has some kind of consciousness and agenda that the user might sometimes not align with. Both together suggest this would be an item in short supply, or even unique--remember that the White God only has three of them to hand out.

Actually, that could be handled by it being "experimental tech."  Sometimes it might falter or fail.  The fate point cost could be seen as analogous to the paying off of a compel that the tech doesn't work.

Maybe the group is tapping into an unexplained power source that they aren't sure how to properly harness (outsiders, maybe?).

[Zorthrip]

That would do it, yeah, but it still doesn't address my other point, explaining why the power is A. so powerful as to affect a wide range of totally unrelated monsters' weaknesses (everything from elves, to vampires, to demons) and B. finicky enough that it sometimes just doesn't work ("Didn't that gun blow right through an Ogre yesterday? Why can't it scratch this troll?" "I ran out of fate points.")

The former suggests that whatever powers the gun is extremely powerful, the latter suggests that whatever powers the gun has some kind of consciousness and agenda that the user might sometimes not align with. Both together suggest this would be an item in short supply, or even unique--remember that the White God only has three of them to hand out.

Let's give this a shot.

Power Level: If you go with the version I posted initially, the power level is limited by the requirement of the Fate point expenditure and a that it only effects more common Catches (unable to effect +0 Catches).

Sometimes Works and Doesn't Others: Let's say the gun does always work. The Fate point expenditure isn't "turning on" the power. It is instead declaring that the agent had some of the runic bullets left. Otherwise, the agent is only shooting normal bullets. Something like runic bullets isn't so common and abundant a resource that they agent has an endless supply.

[Mr. Death]

While mechanically speaking that gives the catches something in common, why would one bullet work the same on a Demon whose catch is Holy Stuff and on a Frost Giant whose catch is fire? Or on an Ogre with a catch of Iron in the same scene as a Black Court vampire?

There's really no commonality for all the catches this would affect that one single item would be able to latch onto through means regularly available to mortals.

That's why something like the big bullet that Hellboy uses in the first movie ("The Works"), makes more sense to me for this kind of functionality. It's something that mortals could make (hell, even without the Ritual power) that would allow them to customize bullets for a wide range of catches.

As for having a fate point mean you still have more bullets, how does that explain situations where he doesn't have them in the first scene, takes a compel, then uses it in the next without having resupplied?

Maybe the group is tapping into an unexplained power source that they aren't sure how to properly harness (outsiders, maybe?).

Now that's an idea I can get behind. Gives some plausibility for both the bullets working and for why they sometimes fail, and provides the 'bite you in the ass' plot hook that such a powerful power ought to come with.

[Sanctaphrax]

I think this here is the crux of the disagreement we have here. You're looking at it purely from a player's perspective, while we're (or at least, I'm) considering the narrative with most every character decision I make.

Considering the narrative is a good idea in play. But when working on the game and trying to keep things balanced, it's a mistake.

There's the thing, though. The powers of the Sword are a package deal with the aspects of the sword, and the role associated with the sword. You don't think it's unbalanced to have one character with a -3 refresh cost (plus fate point) power that is significantly restricted in what his character can and cannot smite, and another character with almost the same -3 refresh (plus fate point) power that he can use on anything without consequence?

No.

See, those restrictions pay for themselves with Fate Points. Getting rid of them means getting rid of some of your power.

The aspects and narrative role of a power are as important to its balance as the fact that it lets you do X for Y amount of refresh.

This is absolutely incorrect.

Narrative effects have no concrete reality to them. Whether or not they matter depends on the GM and the game and the vagaries of chance.

If I never give a Knight a moral quandary, I'm not playing the game wrong. But with your conception of the rules, I'd be breaking the game.

Same goes if I throw up moral quandaries nonstop.

This is bad. The more landmines people need to avoid to keep your game functional, the worse your game is.

PS: If you want an example of why I dislike your position so much, look at D&D 3.5. D&D 3.5 is seriously messed up in large part because its designers thought the way you do.

[Mr. Death]

Considering the narrative is a good idea in play. But when working on the game and trying to keep things balanced, it's a mistake.

No.

See, those restrictions pay for themselves with Fate Points. Getting rid of them means getting rid of some of your power.

It's not all about how many fate points it generates, as I've said.

The aspects and narrative role of a power are as important to its balance as the fact that it lets you do X for Y amount of refresh.

This is absolutely incorrect.

Narrative effects have no concrete reality to them.

So, was Silverblaze mistaken when a narrative effect (the sword's power breaking when he harmed an innocent) had a concrete reality to it (he couldn't use the sword and lost a significant part of his mechanical capability in battle)? If that restriction on the sword had not been enforced--or if Silverblaze had instead taken a power that was exactly the same in every mechanical sense but lost the Sword's aspects--that would have resulted in a completely different scenario and outcome both narratively and mechanically.

If I never give a Knight a moral quandary, I'm not playing the game wrong. But with your conception of the rules, I'd be breaking the game.

Same goes if I throw up moral quandaries nonstop.

No. I'm saying if the Knight could use the sword however he wanted (for petty and selfish reasons, for example) without any restriction or consequence that would go against the purpose of the power as it's written.

This is bad. The more landmines people need to avoid to keep your game functional, the worse your game is.

I'm not talking about putting up landmines. I'm talking about keeping the mechanical powers of a power consistent with the narrative reasons for it.