Does the DresdenVerse default to Ultimate Good or Ultimate Evil?

[Becq]

To that, I'll hasten to add that if your table opts to skip this step, that's perfectly fine.  As a house rule.

[Tedronai]

To which I'll add that the distinction between requiring a template but allowing custom templates as approved by the GM (ie. RAW) vs not requiring a template but requiring a High Concept as approved by the GM and only allowing powers, etc. that mesh with that concept (again, adjudicated by the GM) is little more than a matter of filing paperwork.  The end result is the same.

[Richard_Chilton]

If you're doing quick character creation, yes. The actual section you go to to look at templates notes that you don't need one.

You didn't read those rules.  Here they are again with the last sentence left off:
YS 63: Choose a Template
First, you’ll need to choose a template from Types & Templates (page 72). There, you’ll find packages that tell you what things you’ll have to do in the rest of these steps in order to build a character that matches your concept. Most templates (in fact, all but the Pure Mortal template) require a certain high concept (page 54) and some supernatural powers (page 158), as well as suggesting some skills to take. Thus, the initial template decision will impact everything else down the line.

And the actual sentence says that you can customise your own templates - not abandon them.

Or don't you consider the character creation rules as RAW?

Any RAW-designed custom template. Also, any extant template applied to a true fae such as Emissary of Power.

Custom defined templates are supported by the RAW, but are not included in the RAW.

WCVs need their own template, RCI need their own template, White Court Virgins need their own template - how can you argue that True Fae do not?

Or are you saying that you could make a WVC that was an Emissary of Power, using the musts from the  Emissary of Power template as opposed to the WCV one?

But, since you continue to insist that there is nothing in the rules that even implies that there are NPCs, how about:
"The Mythic level is nearly always reserved for potent NPCs, as is the special Physical Immunity ability."

Richard

[Viatos]

Interesting - it appears that the Character Creation section referencing templates and the Template section of chapter 5 directly contradict each other. One says you must pick a template, the other says that templates are pre-packaged character designs you don't need to use. Looks like whether or not you need a template will be house rule territory, barring errata. Probably a miscommunication between writers.

EDIT: Specifically, the pre-packaged existing templates are "templates". As there's no word for custom character design and as custom character design is literally the opposite of a "template", which implies something used for more then one character, just calling it a "custom template" doesn't fit very well.

Still, you can ALSO make custom templates that ARE designed (by dint of you saying they are) for more then one character, so even if your GM rules that Character Creation beats Types & Templates, you're fine.

1) There is no distinction between "allowed by RAW" and "within RAW". RAW allows you to build custom templates.
2) Sure, you can build a True Fae template by RAW.
3) Yes, you can be an Emissary of Power and a WCV. And a wizard and a Were-Form on top, if starting Refresh is high enough. No, you do not replace Musts, you combine them.
4) I have never made a statement to the effect that there are no NPCs. NPCs exist. NPC powers do not.
5) Nearly always is, predictably, not an absolute. Mythic Toughness is not an NPC power. PCs may use it.

[Richard_Chilton]

One says you must pick a template, the other says that templates are pre-packaged character designs you don't need to use. Looks like whether or not you need a template will be house rule territory, barring errata. Probably a miscommunication between writers.

Please reread that section.  What is says is that you don't have to use these templates - not that you don't have to use templates.

1) There is no distinction between "allowed by RAW" and "within RAW". RAW allows you to build custom templates.
2) Sure, you can build a True Fae template by RAW.

Have you thought about what you are saying?
You've stated that since custom X are allowed by the RAW that all custom X are the RAW.

So all custom stunts are the RAW, all custom powers are the RAW - even though they aren't in the rules and your version of X will be different from my version of X? All the custom stunts and powers on this forum are in the RAW?

I know that you and I disagree over the meaning of RAW, but I didn't know that we were so far apart.

Richard

[Becq]

The "anti-template" crowd seems to continually misrepresent the "pro-template" crowd's attitude with respect to template customization; generally the belief appears to be that you can only have a free-form template-free game, or a game that requires strict adherence to only those templates listed in the book.  For the heck of it, I'm going to summarize my views:

Unlike other RPGs, DFRPG does not use class-based characters.  Even so, it does use template-based characters.  In DFRPG, a templates sort of amounts to highly-customized variant on the idea of a character class -- but one which the player gets to design.  Your Story has a number of sample templates that are 'pre-approved', but these are by no means the only possible templates.  New or modified templates can used -- with GM/table buy-in.  This last bit is key, because it explicitly gives the GM and table a measure of control over the types of characters make sense for the game in question.  This decision can be based on balance (or even sometimes intentional imbalance), or on what fits into the setting (magical flying purple vampire-elephants might not fit into every setting).  Once the template is chosen, it is encapsulated as part of the character's high concept; template and high concept must be mutually consistant.

All characters must have a template; but not only does the template not need to be strictly limited to those listed in YS, it also doesn't need it be entirely static.  Even once in play, templates can be swapped (apprentice template to 'full' template, or pure mortal to RCI), stacked (wizard to wizard+winter knight), modified (adapting the scion meta-template to a particulate scion breed), etc -- again, with the buy-in of the GM/table.  Sometimes these changes are driven by game events (the RCV infection, for example), and other times they will be driven by training (an apprentice wizard or sorceror completes his training and switches to the wizard template).  Such changes, while possible, should not be treated trivially.  Since template and high concept are linked, these changes (at least when voluntary) should generally be made during major milestones (because that's when you can rename your high concept).

When creating or modifying templates, some thought should be given to the the 'template recipe', YS72.  While it's not strictly necessary to formalize every aspect of the template, its important that it be fleshed out enough that the table is on the same page regarding the template's optional powers -- in much the same way that players should flesh out how their aspects can be invoked/compelled.  After all, if the player thinks his dragon scion should be able to eventually grow wings, but the GM disagrees, then now is the time to discuss that, not later in the campaign.  If at some future point the player sees a power and realizes that her character really ought to be able to learn it, its perfectly fine to update the template ... with GM/table buy-in.

TL;DR: Templates are important to provide valuable structure to characters; that they are required does not mean that they may not be customized or that once created they need be static.

Flame if you must, but try not to burn the pie.

[ways and means]

For those who don't like flexibility and versatility templates are probably preferable though I still believe that agreeing what is appropriate with your gm for powers and stunts rather than following the book to the letter is more optimal. Really the debate on templates comes down to the fact fixed templates curtail choice (that is their role) those who like templates like this those who don't do not.

[Becq]

For those who don't like flexibility and versatility templates are probably preferable though I still believe that agreeing what is appropriate with your gm for powers and stunts rather than following the book to the letter is more optimal. Really the debate on templates comes down to the fact fixed templates curtail choice (that is their role) those who like templates like this those who don't do not.

The emboldened words lead me to believe you read little if any of my post above.  Ah, well, I tried. 

[ways and means]

I did read it I just didn't agree the purpose of a template is to limit a players choice in how they create a character and how it grows even if you allow some flexibility they are always going to be less flexible and versatile than no template. Templates don't support you if you want to create a unique character who can grow in any way.

[Richard_Chilton]

The purpose of the templates was to reflect the sorts of character types found within the DV.

That, and FATE seems to be based on a Template system.  Spirit of the Century has them as well. 

I'm sure that a BCV who uses his Sword of the Cross to aid in the return of the Outsiders so that they can wipe humanity off the Earth would make a fun PC to play - I just don't think that it belongs in the DV..

Richard

[devonapple]

My observation of the critical, fundamental conflicts going the rounds lately boil down to three flashpoints:

1. Are there powers that players (assuming a canonical or canon-aligned game) shouldn't have?
2. Are there character concepts that players (assuming a canonical or canon-aligned game) shouldn't play?
3. What is the value of the canon and precedence in coming up with an answer to the first two questions?

Templates have gotten tangled up in the discussions because templates are tangentially associated with all three issues, but templates aren't the real battleground, and because they can be fluid, they are not, ultimately, a determining factor.

Refresh has also gotten tangled up in the discussion because it has been made part of an equation about free will, but the actual conflict there is whether that relationship is commutative (by which I mean: if 0-Refresh = "no free will", does "no free will" = 0-Refresh?). If you believe that a character type which has no free will in the canonical setting should still be playable, you're going to say "no, it is not a commutative relationship," no matter how much sense it seems to make to the naysayers.

But the crux which has informed all of these disagreements has been about the value one should assign to (and thank you for the subtle satire in the NPCs thread, ways and means) canonical precedence when figuring out what and how to play.

The canon is constraint, it is true. Some rebel against constraint as a habit. But constraint inspires creativity. I see it all the time when playing "Fiasco": how do we make these weird plot elements fit together? That's creativity. And there is no shortage of creativity on these boards.

The canon also ensures that we are all speaking a similar language, and sharing a similar vision when we come together to discuss how we want to play our game. Some have said that ignoring the canon is tantamount to playing "urban fantasy" as opposed to Dresden Files. And maybe that's what some people prefer to do.

But for most of this board, I imagine that the canon is at least somewhat influential on how people play and run their Dresden Files games. And the truth is that a lot of the setting remains unexplored - a matter of guesswork. Which is why established elements of the setting take on a great deal of significance, because we can point to these pillars and say "no matter what else, these things are certain."

I could enumerate the things which are ostensibly canon but are disputed on the grounds that we can't know everything about the setting, or that Harry Dresden is an unreliable narrator, or that there will always be exceptions to what seem like cosmic rules.

But at the end of the day, the point of the game is to have fun.

And for some, part of that fun is cleaving as closely as possible to the setting as it is established. That means a lot of things just won't be valid for a player characters. And they aren't wrong to believe that Angels or Fae, having no free will according to the setting, shouldn't be on the table as a character concept. They'll probably accept an Angelic Scion. They would certainly accept a Changeling. And who knows: maybe in game, that Changeling embraces the Fae side but still has Refresh left over. Boom! Grandfathered in!

And for others, the canon is a nice guideline - a good starting point - but ultimately second to the rule of fun. And they aren't wrong to want to play Angels or Fae who, despite the setting's clear establishment that both lack free will, have as much roleplaying possibility as any of the "preferred" archetypes, even though the free will issue is going to come up a lot.

We need to stop talking across each other and come together in our shared appreciation of this setting/game/whatever reason you happen to be here.

If that means the people who show preference for canonical precedence don't think your idea would be appropriate for a canonical game, that's the way they choose to play, and the feedback they are going to give. And if you don't care about canon or setting constraints, be honest about it, and factor that into your discourse.

Likewise, canon enthusiasts, not everyone cares that Jim Butcher denied the possibility of a gold coin floating around with Lucifer in it. They want to put it in their game. Heck, a bunch of us dealing with Jade Court are presumably also canon enthusiasts, and we're going to get a little heartbroken over how we opted to build them when Jim finally raises the curtain and puts that faction into play, right?

Let's all have some pie.

[Tedronai]

I did read it I just didn't agree the purpose of a template is to limit a players choice in how they create a character and how it grows even if you allow some flexibility they are always going to be less flexible and versatile than no template. Templates don't support you if you want to create a unique character who can grow in any way.

I disagree.
The degree of actual limitation placed on a character by the template system (including custom templates as approved by the GM) is largely indistinguishable from that placed on a character by requiring all such advancement to be made in accordance with the character's High Concept (which must be similarly approved by the GM).

I'm sure that a BCV who uses his Sword of the Cross to aid in the return of the Outsiders so that they can wipe humanity off the Earth would make a fun PC to play - I just don't think that it belongs in the DV..

If you, as GM, would not allow that concept in a High Concept, disavowing the template system will not result in such characters entering your games despite your objections.
(and if anyone would allow that in the absence of the template system, adopting it would not suddenly cause such characters to violate any hard rules)

[ways and means]

It is actually perfectly possible to role play as an inhuman monster entirely governed by its wants because said creature is intelligent and so still makes choices on how to achieve its aims playing such a character at face value can actually be fun. 

I'm sure that a BCV who uses his Sword of the Cross to aid in the return of the Outsiders so that they can wipe humanity off the Earth would make a fun PC to play - I just don't think that it belongs in the DV..

Richard

Well I agree such a character could well be fun though I certainly wouldn't call his sword with AFEBG a sword of the cross not when it was given to him by Chaos himself the progenitor of the Outsiders and lord of the old one and when it is powered by the inherent wickedness in the hearts of men (for if there is evil in this world...) 

[Silverblaze]

My observation of the critical, fundamental conflicts going the rounds lately boil down to three flashpoints:

1. Are there powers that players (assuming a canonical or canon-aligned game) shouldn't have?
2. Are there character concepts that players (assuming a canonical or canon-aligned game) shouldn't play?
3. What is the value of the canon and precedence in coming up with an answer to the first two questions?

Templates have gotten tangled up in the discussions because templates are tangentially associated with all three issues, but templates aren't the real battleground, and because they can be fluid, they are not, ultimately, a determining factor.

Refresh has also gotten tangled up in the discussion because it has been made part of an equation about free will, but the actual conflict there is whether that relationship is commutative (by which I mean: if 0-Refresh = "no free will", does "no free will" = 0-Refresh?). If you believe that a character type which has no free will in the canonical setting should still be playable, you're going to say "no, it is not a commutative relationship," no matter how much sense it seems to make to the naysayers.

But the crux which has informed all of these disagreements has been about the value one should assign to (and thank you for the subtle satire in the NPCs thread, ways and means) canonical precedence when figuring out what and how to play.

The canon is constraint, it is true. Some rebel against constraint as a habit. But constraint inspires creativity. I see it all the time when playing "Fiasco": how do we make these weird plot elements fit together? That's creativity. And there is no shortage of creativity on these boards.

The canon also ensures that we are all speaking a similar language, and sharing a similar vision when we come together to discuss how we want to play our game. Some have said that ignoring the canon is tantamount to playing "urban fantasy" as opposed to Dresden Files. And maybe that's what some people prefer to do.

But for most of this board, I imagine that the canon is at least somewhat influential on how people play and run their Dresden Files games. And the truth is that a lot of the setting remains unexplored - a matter of guesswork. Which is why established elements of the setting take on a great deal of significance, because we can point to these pillars and say "no matter what else, these things are certain."

I could enumerate the things which are ostensibly canon but are disputed on the grounds that we can't know everything about the setting, or that Harry Dresden is an unreliable narrator, or that there will always be exceptions to what seem like cosmic rules.

But at the end of the day, the point of the game is to have fun.

And for some, part of that fun is cleaving as closely as possible to the setting as it is established. That means a lot of things just won't be valid for a player characters. And they aren't wrong to believe that Angels or Fae, having no free will according to the setting, shouldn't be on the table as a character concept. They'll probably accept an Angelic Scion. They would certainly accept a Changeling. And who knows: maybe in game, that Changeling embraces the Fae side but still has Refresh left over. Boom! Grandfathered in!

And for others, the canon is a nice guideline - a good starting point - but ultimately second to the rule of fun. And they aren't wrong to want to play Angels or Fae who, despite the setting's clear establishment that both lack free will, have as much roleplaying possibility as any of the "preferred" archetypes, even though the free will issue is going to come up a lot.

We need to stop talking across each other and come together in our shared appreciation of this setting/game/whatever reason you happen to be here.

If that means the people who show preference for canonical precedence don't think your idea would be appropriate for a canonical game, that's the way they choose to play, and the feedback they are going to give. And if you don't care about canon or setting constraints, be honest about it, and factor that into your discourse.

Likewise, canon enthusiasts, not everyone cares that Jim Butcher denied the possibility of a gold coin floating around with Lucifer in it. They want to put it in their game. Heck, a bunch of us dealing with Jade Court are presumably also canon enthusiasts, and we're going to get a little heartbroken over how we opted to build them when Jim finally raises the curtain and puts that faction into play, right?

Let's all have some pie.

Exactly.

No one is going to change their opinion on this, not really.  Might as well just say to yourself.  'Maybe in your game"  Acknowledge the opinion and take it as the criticism it is.  (Constructive or otherwise).  They aren't wrong or stupid for the answer they gave.  In fact, it may bear some worth to think about, even if you don't like it.  You may (doubtful yeah, but...) even alter your view just enough to make your game better for Gm and player alike.

I'm not saying carebear stare everyione on ehre, but we as a community have fallen from our old glory a little.  Myslef included, don't get me wrong. 

To answer the OP: I think we have our answer.  Tools.

However. (large number of exceptions in various games).

I did read it I just didn't agree the purpose of a template is to limit a players choice in how they create a character and how it grows even if you allow some flexibility they are always going to be less flexible and versatile than no template. Templates don't support you if you want to create a unique character who can grow in any way.

Not meant to antagonize.  I'm tryign to understand your gaming style.

Would you allow a character playing a normal canon Knight of the Cross to randomly up and buy wings or blood drinker?  how about glamours?

No restriction, means no rules (kinda).   This could happen.  I wouldn't like that.  That may just be me though.

[Sanctaphrax]

I honestly cannot tell a difference between using custom templates and not using templates, except that with custom templates you make the decision of what powers fit the concept in advance whereas when not using templates you make the decision when it comes up.

Are there any other differences?