Does the DresdenVerse default to Ultimate Good or Ultimate Evil?

[Becq]

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?

If everyone at your table always agrees about such decisions when they're made, then perhaps there will be no difference.  Or if your table opts to play in a "canon-lite" sort of a game in which there really are no limits to what powers a given character can aspire to (which is perfectly fine to do, by the way, if that's your bag), then there's really no need for templates.

But if you're playing in a more cononical sort of game (whether the canon in question is Dresden Files, Buffy, World of Darkness, Twilight, or whatever), then templates are important in making sure that everyone is on the same page as far as what it means to have a high concept naming you as a vampire.  Without templates, you are liable to have a situation in which the WoD fan gets pissed off when the GM tells him that his RCI can't learn "Mask of 1000 Faces".

This might count as what Tedronai refers to as a "game that already suffers from greater underlying problems", but in my experience it is an altogether common situation for people to disagree on matters of canon.  I think this entire discussion is convincing evidence of this.

I think devonappon's thesis of a few days ago did a good job of discussing this fundamental philosophical divide.

[Sanctaphrax]

Becq, that's not another difference. It's a part of the difference I mentioned.

See, whether or not you use templates, you're quite likely to require powers to fit concepts. If you make the decision of whether a power fits a given concept in advance, you avoid the problem you mentioned.

Which is nice, but I generally don't find it to be worth the extra work and the reduced flexibility.

[Becq]

So don't use templates, then.  You're perfectly entitled to change the rules any way you want (assuming your table agrees, of course).  So do so.

Feel free to have werewolves with Wings, or have pixies with Hulking Size, or let your vampires skip taking Feeding Dependency, if that's how your table wants to play.  Of course, if you're finding yourself saying "WTF, werewolves don't have wings!" then I would suggest to you that, like it or not, you are using templates.

In any case, I think that its a great idea for a player and a GM to spend a few minutes going over the character's aspects, discussing what kinds of invokes and compels the player expects to see, so that both are on the same page regarding what the aspects mean.  For the same reason, I think that it's a good idea to go over the player's ideas as to what their particular form of supernatural creature is all about, too.  Your mileage may vary.

[Sanctaphrax]

Not so. Requiring powers to fit concepts is not the same as using templates. If you don't nail down Musts and Options before characters are created, you aren't using templates.

Personally, I'd require some kind of justification for a flying werewolf. But I'd say that justifying a flying werewolf is easy since werewolves don't actually turn into wolves. They turn into mental approximations of wolves, and slapping wings on a mental approximation is hardly implausible.

And here's the important bit: I'd let someone decide to take Wings on their werewolf in the middle of a game. I wouldn't make them spell out the possibility at chargen.

I'd be mildly annoyed if the rules were to make my opinions in this matter canonical. This stuff should not be mandated.

So is there any difference between using templates and not using them beyond the time that you make decisions at?

[Tedronai]

So is there any difference between using templates and not using them beyond the time that you make decisions at?

Those who use templates have (slightly) more of their work done for them in the form of the 'canon' templates, whereas those who do not must use their judgment even for characters whose concept is 'Typical White Council Wizard'.

[Sanctaphrax]

True.

Templates are almost necessary for newbies and lazy people. (Not an insult, by the way. Gaming is supposed to be fun, you're entitled to be lazy about it.)

I kind of forgot about that. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Becq]

Personally, I'd require some kind of justification for a flying werewolf. But I'd say that justifying a flying werewolf is easy since werewolves don't actually turn into wolves. They turn into mental approximations of wolves, and slapping wings on a mental approximation is hardly implausible.

And I probably wouldn't, based on how canon treats such things.  Werewolves do is turn into their mental concept of 'wolfness', which is hard enough even with a somewhat instinctual understanding of what 'wolfness' is.  And while slapping wings onto that mental concept is technically possible, forcing yourself into a foreign shape is difficult enough without complicating it further.  Its kind of similar to the reason many forms of shapeshifting are not intended for use by mortals (ex: YS174, YS237).

I'd be mildly annoyed if the rules were to make my opinions in this matter canonical. This stuff should not be mandated.

I hate to disappoint you, but the rules do take a canon take on this.  They state what powers a great many of the more common templates are allowed to develop, while leaving the option to customize others.  They talk about the practical (canon-based) limits of shapeshifting, and so on.  And ignoring the RAW in these matters is perfectly fine.

Getting back to templates.  So if you tell me, for example, that RAW doesn't mandate using templates, I'll cheerfully tell you you're dead wrong ("The template is crucial to creating your character; even with Quick Character Creation (page 68), this step is necessary." (YS53)).  But if you tell me that your table (or online game) has decided they'd rather play without them, I'll back your right to do so when the RP nazis start kicking your door in -- even while disagreeing with your opinion that they have no value.  So which are we discussing?  What the RAW states, or "what is best in our opinions"?

_{(Edit: fixed a formatting glitch)}

[Tedronai]

The RAW also fully endorses the creation of custom templates, which as has been discussed and demonstrated, is very nearly indistinguishable in its end result from simply requiring that purchased powers are linked to a permanent aspect, the most common of which for this purpose being the High Concept.

In that way, the RAW makes a statement (the one you quoted) which is demonstrably incorrect.  Templates are NOT crucial.  Removing them from your game, while retaining the associated safeguard mentioned above, results in only minute changes.

[Becq]

The RAW also fully endorses the creation of custom templates, which as has been discussed and demonstrated, is very nearly indistinguishable in its end result from simply requiring that purchased powers are linked to a permanent aspect, the most common of which for this purpose being the High Concept.

In that way, the RAW makes a statement (the one you quoted) which is demonstrably incorrect.  Templates are NOT crucial.  Removing them from your game, while retaining the associated safeguard mentioned above, results in only minute changes.

So you disagree with the RAW, and endorse, but often do not choose to play by house rules with a result you feel is similar to (or even very nearly indistinguishable from) RAW.  Great!  Did you miss the part where I said I absolutely support your right to make such decisions at your table?

_{Edit: added the italicized phrase to remove a misrepresentation}

[Tedronai]

You misrepresent my position.  Please do not do this.  If it was unintentional, please be more careful.

The RAW states as fact a claim that is demonstrably false.  I disagree with this claim because I embrace rationality and reason.

When I do play, it is generally with templates, because I generally end up in a mixed group including at least one inexperienced player who will benefit from that kind of rigid structure and clarity of options.

[Richard_Chilton]

The RAW states as fact a claim that is demonstrably false.

Okay, I'll bit.  What do the RAW state as a fact when it demonstrably false?

Richard

[Becq]

You misrepresent my position.  Please do not do this.  If it was unintentional, please be more careful.

*blink*

Ok, I've corrected what I understand now to be a misrepresentation (though one that does not really negate the point I had been making).  Am I correctly representing your position now?

[Tedronai]

Okay, I'll bit.  What do the RAW state as a fact when it demonstrably false?

The RAW claim of templates being crucial to character creation, when, as we have discussed, their removal changes character creation in a well run game to a negligible degree.

Am I correctly representing your position now?

Except insofar is disagreeing with what one knows to be a demonstrably false statement is implied to be a decision.

[Richard_Chilton]

The RAW claim of templates being crucial to character creation, when, as we have discussed, their removal changes character creation in a well run game to a negligible degree

It is crucial to character creation when playing with the RAW.  Otherwise, why would you spent time creating a custom template for each of your players?

As for how a game works when there are no templates, it really depends on the group.

Richard

[Sanctaphrax]

I hate to disappoint you, but the rules do take a canon take on this.  They state what powers a great many of the more common templates are allowed to develop, while leaving the option to customize others.  They talk about the practical (canon-based) limits of shapeshifting, and so on.

Not quite true. By RAW, I can stack another template onto the Werewolf template without issue. So I can make Werewolves fly and shoot lightning from their buttocks without changing the rules at all.

Which is related to what Tedronai is getting at here. Having the rules say that you need a template is like having the rules say that you need to fill out your character sheet on green construction paper.

Sure, technically you'd then need to use green construction paper when playing the RAW. But the situation and the statement is obviously ridiculous, because whether or not you use green construction paper really doesn't affect the game much.