Powers = Tools ?

[devonapple]

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?

When it is put this way, then I have to disagree: as I mentioned in the other thread, it would be a bad precedent to establish that playing DFRPG requires reading the entire series. Reading the series is a great source of inspiration, but also creative constraint, and it wouldn't really be fair to expect everyone to tack it into the price of admission for this game.

I'm happy to base game advice on my knowledge of the fictional setting, and I'm going to cleave to the canon for any decisions I make for my own game, and firmly so, but when put upon this footing, I just can't co-sign a stance that obligates players to know the entire book series in order to have fun.

[Richard_Chilton]

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. 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.

Reading Chapter 1 and 12 of YS and OW tells them all they need to know about the DV to play in it.

The value of the produce is it faithfully recreates the DV.   It's not a generic game.  It is a licensed product set in Jim's world.

Why do you think it isn't?

When it is put this way, then I have to disagree: as I mentioned in the other thread, it would be a bad precedent to establish that playing DFRPG requires reading the entire series.

I have never said that you need to know the entire series before you can play, just that the game is set in the DV as it existed at the end of Small Favor.  If you're having fun at your table then that's what matters.  However, since I'm not at your table and your not at mine we lack a common ground to discuss anything except the default setting.

Richard

[Viatos]

It's not a generic game.  It is a licensed product set in Jim's world.

Why do you think it isn't?

We have different values here. I consider the game to be generic because I consider the Dresdenverse to be a generic urban fantasy setting. I do not mean the same thing that you do when you say 'generic'. We are in agreement that it's a licensed product set in Jim's world. That's not the problem.

I have never said that you need to know the entire series before you can play

This is the problem, because actually yes, you are taking that position. You're attempting to use novel canon to dictate game rules, and even worse, you're attempting to refer to such canon as RAW when it's not even part of the DFRPG. This is a really bad thing because it's totally untrue and very confusing for people reading the forums to have to parse. It's like if you don't know chess and you go to a chess forum to learn about chess, and there's a guy there who keeps making up chess rules based on a book he read about medieval warfare, which he claims is identical to the game of chess.

When you stop using the acronym RAW to refer to things that are not even in the DFRPG, let alone rules text, and stop referencing novels as substitutes for the game's actual mechanics, this problem will go away.

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't think anybody disagrees about whether reskinned powers are balanced. They are, almost by definition. If you change something that matters to the game balance, then it's not just a reskin. The criticisms are along non-balance-related lines.

Furthermore, nobody except maybe vultur really seems to believe that the problems with ACaEBG are anything but real. The question is whether it matters. Richard is contending that it does not matter, because game balance is less important than setting emulation. I think. I confess, I'm having trouble following some of his posts.

Anyway...

I'm the only person in my RL group who's read the books. Nobody else has the foggiest clue how the setting works.

This has not presented an impediment to play at all.

Richard, the cover text there shows that the game can be used for the DV. It does not show that the game cannot be used for anything else.

This entire thread, you have presented no actual evidence that you can't play another setting with the system. You have only shown that the system was intended for the setting. Which is pointless, because we all know that. The question of whether the system can be used for other settings has gone completely un-addressed by you.

So I have to admit, I have trouble taking your arguments seriously.

Oh, and the system doesn't really recreate the DV all that faithfully. Much of the setting simply cannot be modelled properly with the system we have. This is not much of a problem, but it's worth mentioning right now.

PS: Even with extensive play, balance problems are rarely truly provable. You can go beyond a reasonable doubt, but not up to the level that mathematical rigour demands.
PPS: The difference between novel canon and RAW that Viatos just mentioned is very important. Please pay attention to it.

[UmbraLux]

It is a licensed product set in Jim's world.

Actually, I think it's a product licensing some of Jim B's material to create a setting in our world.  Hence the titles of the two RPG books. 

I do tend to think the books can be useful adjuncts to discussion - but they're not rules.  They're setting background.  Flavor text...fluff if you prefer that term.  (I don't, but that's another issue.)

[Sanctaphrax]

(I don't, but that's another issue.)

I really like that term. Is there something wrong with it?

[Tedronai]

Fluffy things are soft, comfortable, and pleasant to the touch, but they provide little in the way of structure upon which other things can be supported.
Crunchy things provide superior structural support, but tend to be rigid and uncomfortable (particularly when they break).

You wouldn't want to wrap yourself in a crunchy shell to stay warm at night, and you wouldn't want to build a skyscraper using only bunches of fluff, but if you wrap some fluff around some crunch, you can get yourself a nice comfortable bed or couch that safely supports your weight.

[devonapple]

I really like that term. Is there something wrong with it?

Yeah, it promotes the idea that such information is easily dismissed, or unimportant to the game. It casts a divisive shadow on any discussion in which there is some conflict along setting/mechanics lines, and it feeds into the misconception that there are two kinds of role-players in the gaming community.

[Richard_Chilton]

We have different values here. I consider the game to be generic because I consider the Dresdenverse to be a generic urban fantasy setting.

And I consider it specific urban fantasy setting.

Anita Blake does not fit in the DV.  Neither do the majority of other protagonists in Urban Fantasy novels.  Heck, even most of the Harry Potter characters would be hunted Lawbreaker.

This is the problem, because actually yes, you are taking that position.

I've stated my position openly.  Please quote the message where I said you had to read all the novels.

Which will be hard to do, since I've never said.  Alas, I cannot control what you read into my posts.

You're attempting to use novel canon to dictate game rules, and even worse, you're attempting to refer to such canon as RAW when it's not even part of the DFRPG. This is a really bad thing because it's totally untrue and very confusing for people reading the forums to have to parse.

Please point to anyone who is confused.  Pretty please.

When you stop using the acronym RAW to refer to things that are not even in the DFRPG, let alone rules text, and stop referencing novels as substitutes for the game's actual mechanics, this problem will go away.

I have avoided using the word "you" as much as possible, but I don't seem to have a choice.

Your problem is that you refuse to accept that the Dresden Files RPG is based in the DV.  It is rooted there.  It has taken years of work to get a game that can model Jim's work.  When things happen in the books that aren't possible in the game, the game designer posts how to make it workable - adapting the rules to fit the novels.

A big chunk of the Paranet book will be updating the game to a certain point in the novels.  Because playing in the DV is the point of the game.

Until you can grasp that point, I don't think we have anything more to say to each other.

Richard, the cover text there shows that the game can be used for the DV. It does not show that the game cannot be used for anything else.

You did read that quote, didn't you? I'm sorry, but based on your reply I had to ask.  Because  the cover text says the game was designed to be used in the DV.  The rules give you total control of your game world, but it was designed for use in the DV.

Which is pointless, because we all know that. The question of whether the system can be used for other settings has gone completely un-addressed by you.

I am so sorry that you've missed the posts I've made where I've said that homebrew is encouraged  or the ones where I've said that since I'm not at your table I don't know what you've done to the world - just as you don't know what I've done to mind.  You see, I have said in various posts that since we don't know each others changes the only common ground we have to discuss things is the DV.

And perhaps you've missed my attempt to start a thread dealing with how the DFRPG can be adapted to other Urban Fantasy worlds - because they would have to be adapted to some extent to play outside the DV.  Jim's setting elements would have to be abandoned and new ones added - which require changes to the rules.

So I have to admit, I have trouble taking your arguments seriously.

As do I have problems taking your "the game can be divorced from the setting" arguments seriously.  Because the rules do their best to model the setting.

I personally don't care if, in your game, you have Angels or Fae with freewill.  I do have a problem with you saying that those are valid character types for the game, because they don't exist in the DV.  I don't care if your game has the gold piece that Judas was tipped with linked to a dozen fallen who war for control of the mortal who picks it up.  I do have a problem if you tell others that such a character fits in the DV, because Jim has repeatedly said that Judas wasn't tipped.  If, in your game, the athame given to Lea at Blanca's dinner party was something made three minutes before by a local witch, that's fine, but in the baseline DV it has been revealed to be something else.

Actually, I think it's a product licensing some of Jim B's material to create a setting in our world.  Hence the titles of the two RPG books. 

One of us has read the OGL in regards to Jim's work.

I do tend to think the books can be useful adjuncts to discussion - but they're not rules.  They're setting background.  Flavor text...fluff if you prefer that term.  (I don't, but that's another issue.)

And I feel that if it can happen in the books then the rules can (and should) be stretched so it can happen in the game.  That they rule out certain things while encouraging others.

That the game exists to model the books.

But I have a feeling that this unending bickering is leading nowhere.  I know I'll never convince some people how utterly wrong they are, just as I know that they are not going to shift me from my position.  So why don't we let this argument die a natural death and get on with life?

Richard

[Sanctaphrax]

Yeah, it promotes the idea that such information is easily dismissed, or unimportant to the game. It casts a divisive shadow on any discussion in which there is some conflict along setting/mechanics lines, and it feeds into the misconception that there are two kinds of role-players in the gaming community.

Ugh, really?

What's wrong with fluff? Fluff is comfy!

I guess I'll put it on the list of ruined words beside niggardly, which you can't say any more because it sounds racist.

[devonapple]

What's wrong with fluff? Fluff is comfy!

I know, but other gamers have ruined it for all of us.

[Sanctaphrax]

@Richard:

Yes, I have read the quote. It says, "this gives you everything you need to play in the DV". It does not say "this does not give you everything you need to play in some other universe". It does not even imply that.

Setting elements are not rules, and nobody except you is talking about them here. Obviously you need to change the setting material in order to play in a different setting. But you barely need to change the rules at all to do so. That's what I've been saying this entire time, and you've said almost nothing about that.

Even if the rules are trying very hard to emulate the DV, they might well still be good for some other setting.

Also, I don't understand the whole "you're allowed to homebrew" thing any better than the "let's not argue this" thing. It's not news, and I honestly don't see its relevance.

[UmbraLux]

One of us has read the OGL in regards to Jim's work.

And another one of us read the RPG books...and titles. 

And I feel that if it can happen in the books then the rules can (and should) be stretched so it can happen in the game.  That they rule out certain things while encouraging others.

That the game exists to model the books.

I think that's a good starting point.  Once the game begins it takes priority for me.  Or perhaps more correctly, our game will end up being our interpretation and expression of the Dresdenverse.  It's no longer Jim's or Fred's version, it's our groups' version.

But I have a feeling that this unending bickering is leading nowhere.  I know I'll never convince some people how utterly wrong they are, just as I know that they are not going to shift me from my position.  So why don't we let this argument die a natural death and get on with life?

I agree with the latter statement but I don't understand the need to call one 'wrong' just because you differ.  They're simply different.

[UmbraLux]

I really like that term. Is there something wrong with it?

It carries a connotation of 'less important' or 'afterthought'.  "Something of no consequence" is one of the definitions. 

I give the background more weight than "no consequence". 

[Richard_Chilton]

I think that's a good starting point.  Once the game begins it takes priority for me.  Or perhaps more correctly, our game will end up being our interpretation and expression of the Dresdenverse.  It's no longer Jim's or Fred's version, it's our groups' version.

And I agree with that - but since I don't know where you've taken yours (or you where I've taken mine) all we have common ground to talk about is the baseline.  It's like how Spock couldn't explain being dead to McCoy because McCoy had never died.

Games start in the DV, then drift.

I agree with the latter statement but I don't understand the need to call one 'wrong' just because you differ.  They're simply different.

That was born from my reaction of being told what my problem is.  If I have problem, it's because they are wrong.

Richard
(edited to fix [/quote[ )