Powers = Tools ?

[Richard_Chilton]

Here are your problems, Richard:

1. You seem to think that the problems with ACaEBG come from taking it out of the Sword. They don't. Even if you make ACaEBG require all the other powers and narrative elements of the Sword, the balance problems are still there.

I can live with three unbalanced artifacts.  The Knights of the Cross seemed designed for a very high refresh game.

2. You have conflated a passing mention of the Swords being faith-powered into a rule stating that all Sword-like items must be powered by massive Faith.

No - I have looked at something that explain "how this power really works" and gone with it.

Consider:
Everyone of note in the Dresden books know of the Knights of the Cross.  From Lea to the Merlin, they look at Micheal and say "that's a Knight of the Cross".  If the power was common, then the Knights of the Cross wouldn't be anything but another group of church sponsored hunters.

What makes special? The three unique Swords with their unique power.

The game designers didn't go out looking for a weird power to put in the Swords, they looked at what the Swords do and tried their best to model that power in the game.  And (in my opinion) they succeeded.

3. You seem to believe that the Rules As Written includes things that are not rules.

We differ as to whether or not the rules are world specific.  If they are, then the setting notes are the explanations how the rules work - making them part of the rules.

I wouldn't take this stand on a GURPs book or a D&D setting, but I rank the DFRPG up there with Empire of the Petaled Throne for games where the setting dominate the system.

4. You seem to believe that anything that does not exist within the canon of the Dresden Files is contrary to the RAW. Which is preposterous, since that makes following the RAW into an impossibility. After all, your PCs probably aren't going to be canon characters. And if they are, then they won't re-enact the canon stories.

No, I believe that Jim has nailed down enough canon to make a world that we can play in.  The DV has angels, but not angels who have exercised freewill (those are the Fallen).  The DV has 30 Nickleheads, not 40, 20, 50, or any other number.  The DV has...

I could go on for quite a while.  Let me see if I can explain what I see as the difference playing in the setting and changing the setting from the DV:

The Summer Knight, The Winter Knight, and two Knights of the Cross team up for some mission - that's within the broad lines defined by the DV. They're not going to be the canon Knights, but they are still playing in the DV.

The Summer Knight, the Winter Knight, and seven Knights of the Cross team up - that's not within the broad lines of the DV.  It breaks the "3 Knights of the Cross" part of the setting, something that Jim nailed down.  It could lead to a fun game, but it's not within the common setting that we have to work with.

And if three players want to all be Summer Knights at the same time, well under the RAW they can't.  That's not to say that a group couldn't have fun with everyone playing Summer Knights, just that doing so isn't within the setting or the RAW.  And homebrew can be really great (especial if you can keep the yeast down) but since I don't know your homebrew and you don't know my homebrew (yes, it exist - I just don't post about it on this board) so we don't have a common ground to discuss it.  We do have common ground to discuss the published stuff, so that's what I discuss here unless everyone is making it clear that we're talking about homebrew.  Custom powers, custom templates, custom anything - that's great if your table likes it, but it's homebrew.  I don't mean that as an insult or to belittle the rule (or whatever), just to separate it from the RAW.


But, if the things you consider the RAW is the whole of your game, then how many steps does it take to cure someone who has been the subject of Domination and turned into a Renfield?

I ask (for the second time) because the rules are silent on this but the setting says that the greatest magical mind in history failed (the original Merlin) as have every Saint who tried.  It's impossible in the DV, but it was left out of the rules.


Shrug.

Neither of us are going to change the others mind on this subject.  We should accept that and move on to other things.

Richard

[Sanctaphrax]

Actually, the Knights mostly work as long as you avoid using them in a very high Refresh game. The balance problems become worse as you increase the game's power level.

And the game encourages you to take Strength on your Knight, which is not fitting with the narrative.

Furthermore, the existence of some monstrosity with ACaEBG does not make the Knights non-special. It makes that monster really threatening. Like that mistfiend that attacked the White Council that one time; judging by how effectively it massacred wizards, it likely would be best modeled with an ACaEBG-lookalike. Because otherwise Enchanted Item defences would make its job very hard.

Regardless of whether the rules are world-specific, the world is still not the rules.

The things being proposed in this thread do not contradict book canon. There's no reason to believe that there isn't an all-killing void god somewhere in the DV, and if it had babies with a mortal the result might well have Claws and ACaEBG. And again, there's that mistfiend.

Amusingly enough, I vaguely recall an explicit allowance for multiple Summer Knights in the RAW. I'll see if I can track it down.

Reviving a Renfield might well be possible. Merlin and the Saints were not the strongest possible beings. An Unravelling from Mother Winter might do the trick, as might a few hundred years of work from a wizard.

Of course, the rules are silent on that matter. So by the RAW, it's up to you.

I don't understand statements that boil down to "this debate is pointless, we should end it". Obviously neither of us believes that, since if we did we would not be here.

[Richard_Chilton]

Regardless of whether the rules are world-specific, the world is still not the rules.

It is what the rules are trying to emulate.  If they differ to any great extent, that's a failure of the rules.

Amusingly enough, I vaguely recall an explicit allowance for multiple Summer Knights in the RAW. I'll see if I can track it down.

Was it:
Musts: A Knight of the Faerie Court must have a high concept that names the title and mantle he has assumed (e.g., Winter Knight or Summer Knight). No other character in the game may hold this same title at the same time as this character.
?

There is a discussion on other types of reps from fairy under the Emissary of Power Template (which states or implies that the Knights of the Faerie Courts and Champions of God Templates are specific examples of this - much like how the Changeling Template is a specific example of Scions).

I don't understand statements that boil down to "this debate is pointless, we should end it". Obviously neither of us believes that, since if we did we would not be here.

What I'm trying to say is that I strongly doubt that I will change your mind during this discuss or that you will change mine.  I have pointed to various parts of the books, you have disregarded them.  Just as I disregard your implied assertion that the DFRPG is a generic game that happens to loosely linked to the DV.

Richard
(edited because I normally use tabs when I type, and when you tab on this forum it's very easy to send the message before you've finished typing - like I just did)

[vultur]

Wait, why is ACAEBG so broken anyway? Taken on its own, it'd be a really high Refresh power: the Sword is steel and Holy, so it beats a significant proportion - probably a majority - of common catches anyway - for fae, Blampires, Rampires, demons, even the lesser Outsiders ['tentacled horrors' from OW]. So I'd imagine a hypothetical 'separate' ACAEBG power would have a Refresh cost greater than the -3 that adding up the elements of the Sword of the Cross would suggest, since it'd be a much bigger advantage to someone with, say, Claws than it is on the Sword compared to a hypothetical steel sword with Holy but not ACAEBG.

So, given that, is it really unbalanced for a power that would probably be -4 refresh at least? With Strength, yes, it's really powerful, but that's MORE refresh, and ACAEBG uses a fate point, so a character relying on it probably doesn't want to be close to the edge on Refresh...

IMO it's actually only very powerful situationally (since so many DV catches like fae and Blampires are really easy to meet), in those cases where you go up against really heavy hitters or WCVs and such with super-obscure catches (and WCVs have Recovery but not Toughness...)  Is a Strength + ACAEBG character scarier than a character with the same Refresh spent on Evocation + Refinements?

[Viatos]

What I'm trying to say is that I strongly doubt that I will change your mind during this discuss or that you will change mine.  I have pointed to various parts of the books, you have disregarded them.  Just as I disregard your implied assertion that the DFRPG is a generic game that happens to loosely linked to the DV.

The problem is that one position (ignoring the DV where it exists outside DFRPG) is supported by the game book. The other (the DV is somehow in charge of DFRPG) is your personal canon and it makes discussion impossible, because you're not talking about DFRPG. It's like if someone wanted to have a conversation about, say, the most effective class for dealing damage in Mass Effect 2 and you pointed to the performance of adepts in one of the associated novels to base judgments on. It's linked media, but nothing more.

It's not possible to talk about the game without establishing some ground rules. The most obvious of which is, let's talk about THE GAME, and not what Butcher puts in his books or on his Twitter, or what Wikipedia says about werewolves, or how your first cousin seven times removed feels regarding people who claim to have magic powers. These things are not RAW. They are not part of DFRPG. At best, they are linked media. But you can't communicate in a shared medium if you try to include things outside of the covers of the game books. Everything gets overtaken by differing canons.

[Richard_Chilton]

The problem is that one position (ignoring the DV where it exists outside DFRPG) is supported by the game book.

The game talks about taking things away from the DV if the table wants to, but I bought the Dresden Files game.  I didn't adapt the Ars Magica magic system to fit the Dresden Files books.  I didn't convert the Swords of the Cross into Runequest.  I didn't dig out D20 Modren and add spells - I bought the Dresden Files game.

And I sure as hell didn't buy Generic Urban Fantasy RPG.  Just think about how many chapters there would be on handling Anita Blake's "plot advances".  Shudder.

Instead of doing any of  that, I bought a game that:

...gives you all the rules you need to build characters and tell your own stories in the Dresdenverse. Inside, you’ll uncover the secrets of spellcasting, the extents of mortal and supernatural power, and the hidden occult reality of  the unfamiliar city you call home.
Together with Volume Two: Our World, The Dresden Files RPG: Your Story gives you everything you need to make your own adventures in the thrilling and dangerous world of New York Times best-selling author Jim Butcher’s Dresden Files series!

What game did you buy?

Richard

[Sanctaphrax]

@vultur: It's actually less powerful with Claws than with the Sword, since the Sword is probably weapon 3 and Claws are only weapon 2.

The problem is that a Sword + Strength/a stunt makes for attacks that absolutely nothing can survive a hit from without consequences. Armour doesn't work, extra stress boxes don't work, Immunity doesn't work, nothing works.

So, yeah. It's too scary.

Some sort of cost-scaling mechanism might balance out the power, though, just as you suggest. Perhaps you could make something like that?

@Richard: Let this be my reply to both this and the Ultimate thread.

You really need to stop using the term RAW like that. The entire point of RAW is that it's an objective body of mechanics from which people can work. Note the word mechanics, it's important. RAW =/= canon. About half the time when you say RAW you actually mean canon, and it's really confusing sometimes.

The fact that the game simulates the universe does not mean that the rules of the game cannot be used for anything else. You are dedicating great effort to proving something that nobody denies and that I, personally, can't see the relevance of. That's why your text citations are being brushed off by me.

Also, the game mechanics obviously don't simulate the novels perfectly unless you go crazy with Aspects. The rulebooks acknowledge this repeatedly. That's why they use the words plot device so often. This is not terribly relevant, but I thought I'd point it out.

And finally, I'd like to point you to page 52 of Our World. The possibility of multiple Sidhe Knights is discussed there.

[Silverblaze]

Without using the power in enough games, in enough encounters, and in enough situations - matters game balance cannot be proven; only postulated about or theorized/hypothesized. 

I've played one character since these books came out. (I very briefly played a wereform and have helped narrate NPC's)  I'd like to think as a staunch defender of overall game balance and as someone who has been in on beta testing and game design (not in the DFRPG admittedly); I'd like to think I have useful and relatable experiences others can benefit from. 

If I could provide specific examples of play where the sword of the cross was used in combat would anyone care?

If the data showed examples where the sword proved to be overpowered and examples where it seemd top be perfectly balanced at the following refresh levels: ( 10, 15, 20, 25) would anyone take into account the experience of someone who played a Knight in a long running game at all of these levels?

If I provided math that allowed strength powers and/or stunts and how it affected foes would it change anyone's mind?  If i was extremely thorough with my examples including other party members rolls of the dice, what they did, what the foes had, what powers the players had...and the outcomes of hte fights would this arguement be altered in any meaningful way?

I bet not.  I have given good examples of this before and they were ignored or dismissed. I can give very detailed data...but why bother? I honestly feel even if I do better and get even more specific writing an essay on hte matter opinions of both "camps" could remain the same.

 (Richard's side vs Viatos side [these two people are not being picked on, they simply seem to be quite vocal and it was easier than listing every name on both sides fo the debate, I can edit later if you all like...no offense was intended]) 

I feel both sides are unwilling to budge nor compromise, not just one.  The assertion that only one side is being unrasonable is simply untrue.

[Richard_Chilton]

(Richard's side vs Viatos side [these two people are not being picked on, they simply seem to be quite vocal and it was easier than listing every name on both sides fo the debate, I can edit later if you all like...no offense was intended]) 

I feel both sides are unwilling to budge nor compromise, not just one.

I wholeheartedly agree with this point.

Richard

[Silverblaze]

I wholeheartedly agree with this point.

Richard

Exactly.  I could have taken minutes of every game I played in.  I could even have had one of those courtroom typists monitor each session.  All that data should provide some evidence of what seemed overpowered in the game.  It could likely dettle sebates of what poweres worked best in what circumstances. (are wizards overpwoered? do pure mortals ever equal out to supernatural creatures? are reskinned powers baalnced in this setting?)  It could explain what ingenuity can do to a game with or without powers. It would include players and GM's talking about game balance.

None of it would matter. 

[Tedronai]

Particularly given that those have not been serious points of contention (one 'side' of this discussion not seriously contesting them) in this thread for some time, rather what has been discussed is whether a game that doesn't strictly follow novel canon can be properly referred to as a game run in the DFrpg, even if it strictly follows all of the rules in that published game system.

[Viatos]

I don't really see any "sides" existing here. I've explained what the acronym RAW stands for and the difference between DFRPG the game and Dresdenverse the setting. It looks like a debate because there's been incredible resistance to this. I would go so far as to posit that there are posters who do not believe you can even play the game without also owning the books. But it's literally undebateable, you can't make a logical argument that DFRPG extends beyond the purchased product any more then you can make a logical argument that the Dresdenverse also extends to Star Wars and thus Jar Jar Binks is part of Jim Butcher's canon.

In point of fact, making either impossible argument involves exactly the same language.

[Silverblaze]

Seems to me there are people who agree that:

Powers = Tools.

It seems to me that there are people who disagree that :

Powers = Tools.

There is likely/hopefully middle ground here.  I like to think I stand somewhere in the middle, but am wholly against players just taking any power at anytime for with no reasoning/concept support etc.  Which is why even though I see and prefer a middle ground, when boiled down I suppose I am on a side.

The debates seem to have people supporting one side or there other though. 

Which is why it seems there are sides to the debtate and a middle ground.    There do seem to be sides though.

[Richard_Chilton]

But it's literally undebateable, you can't make a logical argument that DFRPG extends beyond the purchased product any more then you can make a logical argument that the Dresdenverse also extends to Star Wars and thus Jar Jar Binks is part of Jim Butcher's canon.

But you can make that argument by citing the rulebook.  Specifically, some of the places where it says that the game is set in the DV.

Name of the Game: Dresden Files RPG
Cover:Whether you’re a champion of God, changeling, vampire, werewolf, wizard, or plain “vanilla” mortal human being, this volume of The Dresden Files RPG gives you all the rules you need to build characters and tell your own stories in the Dresdenverse. Inside, you’ll uncover the secrets of spellcasting, the extents of mortal and supernatural power, and the hidden occult reality of the unfamiliar city you call home.
Together with Volume Two: Our World, The Dresden Files RPG: Your Story gives you everything you need to make your own adventures in the thrilling and dangerous world of New York Times best-selling author Jim Butcher’s Dresden Files series!
Pg 8: I Want to Learn…
…about the Dresdenverse: see Chapter 1 and maybe Chapter 12 in Your Story and, well, all of Our World.
Pg 10: the heading of Harry's World, then the Maxims of the Dresdenverse, and basically the entire chapter.

I could go on, but if can you look at those references and "We aren't playing in the DV" then what's the point of me pasting more and more lines of text?

Richard

[Viatos]

Table X has purchased Your Story and Our World. No one at Table X has read a Jim Butcher novel. They own a complete game and may play it in a complete fashion. They have 100% of the RAW and 100% of DFRPG's setting materials. This is what you want to debate, but it can't be challenged, and I don't understand your DESIRE to do so. It helps no one and only serves to detract from the value of the product.