Powers = Tools ?

[devonapple]

Setting elements are not rules, and nobody except you is talking about them here.

Untrue. I was also treating the fiction as rules until Viatos made a very good point.

I still prefer to treat the setting and background elements as laid out in "Your Story" as part of the RAW, and I use the descriptions and plot elements as context to inform the mechanics and the more rule-like rules.

[Richard_Chilton]

At one point I believe the majority of people here were concerned with the game as a whole (i.e. how to effectively model the DV) as opposed to focusing on isolated rules.

For example, http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,16379.msg755259.html#msg755259 had some feedback on how to better model the senior council.

Richard

[Viatos]

Anita Blake does not fit in the DV.

Anita Blake is very high refresh, but pretty much all of her abilities are modeled in the DFRPG. She's a Scion with Ritual (Necromancy) as her main trick, and a laundry list of random powers she's gained as an Emissary of Power or as a Scion. The only trick she knows that can't be modeled easily is  telepathy with a couple other characters, but that's one out of like twenty - Incite Emotion, Domination, Channeling (Aura), the Inhumans, everything she can do has a model. Furthermore, she's in theme as a warlock necromancer. She fits like a glove.

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

You've stated a lot of positions, which isn't really "open" - it's very unclear where you stand since you've pointed to a bunch of different places and said "here I am". In any case, you keep referencing the novels to make rules claims, which is invalid. You've referred to information from the novels as RAW, which is invalid. The implication is that you seem to believe the novels and the greater Dresdenverse are somehow part of the DFRPG, rather then inspirational material, and the problem is that that's just not true. I know this, because I own a copy of Your Story and Our World, and I can read them, and in reading them see an absence of lines that say things like "Refer to page 87 of White Knight to find out how to resolve combat ".

Your problem is that you refuse to accept that the Dresden Files RPG is based in the DV.

If you want to be taken seriously, it's important to know to whom you're speaking and what it is they've written. For instance, if you read the post to which you are replying, you'd understand how silly saying this makes you look. I suspect this persistent belief you've got going on is falsely attributed to me after you saw someone else write it while skimming.

So why don't we let this argument die a natural death and get on with life?

Because you keep throwing out false information into rules discussions. When you do that, it'll be pointed out to you and for the benefit of other readers.

[Richard_Chilton]

If you want to be taken seriously, it's important to know to whom you're speaking and what it is they've written. For instance, if you read the post to which you are replying, you'd understand how silly saying this makes you look. I suspect this persistent belief you've got going on is falsely attributed to me after you saw someone else write it while skimming.

I do know who I am taking to.

Maybe you should re-read your own messages as you continue to insist that elements of the setting (the "fluff" as some call it) are not what the rules are trying to reflect.

If something has been established as an element of the DV then is part of the setting - and is something that the rules reflect.

For example: angels lack freewill, the Swords of the Cross are powered by focusing the belief of billions, etc.

You reject those elements as (to paraphrase) "not part of the rules" when in many ways they are the game.  In short, "Your problem is that you refuse to accept that the Dresden Files RPG is based in the DV."

Richard

[vultur]

Furthermore, nobody except maybe vultur really seems to believe that the problems with ACaEBG are anything but real.

Oh, I'd agree that *if* it's treated as a -3 refresh cost power when independent from the Sword, it's a problem. I just don't think that's a necessary conclusion from the Sword writeup, since the Holy + steel Sword fills so many common Catches even before ACAEBG.

Similar stuff, yes, would happen if somebody with Supernatural Strength gets hold of a Sword of the Cross (I think that'd be quite a stretch settingwise except in really unusual circumstances like the final battle of Changes, but...) Personally, I think the Swords have clear enough roles and linkage to the Knights that there's kind of an implicit warning sign if you want to give one to a Scion of Hercules or whatever, but maybe not.

@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.

"Beating a Catch" is stronger, yes. But ACAEBG, as such, not so sure - since a hypothetical SotC without ACAEBG is already going to beat a huge proportion of Catches in the setting, being both holy and steel. Demons, Blampires, Rampires, fae, Denarians (except Nic), ghouls...

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.

Because of the above, however, how many things does that affect that a non-ACAEBG-bearing steel, holy item wouldn't? White Court Vampires (who generally lack Toughness anyway) and the real heavyweights (HWWB-style Outsiders, Nic, Dragons, etc.) ... anything else?

So it's really only that powerful if you regularly fight the very big powers (and not even all of those, even the highest-end Faeries still are vulnerable to iron, the Black Court Elders had most of the same weaknesses - though less to sunlight, etc.) So yes, I can see why it'd be worst in a really high-Refresh game.

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

Possibly -3 in situations like the Sword where its use would be fairly rare because most common Catches would already be covered; -4 in a situation such as just-Holy (a being with Holy Touch maybe) or on a non-Holy steel weapon; maybe -5 totally on its own?

Something like:
All Creatures Are Equal Before God [-5].

You can make attacks so infused with holy power that they pierce the mightiest defenses.

Musts: This power is generally found on an appropriate Item of Power (in the canon Dresdenverse, this means the Swords of the Cross, though in your campaign others may exist). To take this power directly (without an Item), a character must have a High Concept denoting a 'heavyweight' power of the Light, such as AVENGING ANGEL.  It's possible that in your particular setting certain other beings or mythoi might possess or grant equivalent powers, though so far there's no evidence of that in the Dresdenverse as we know it; in such a case, an appropriate High Concept is still required. (For example, Surtur's apocalyptic flaming sword might well be capable of destroying its target through any possible defense.)

Benefit: The character may spend a fate point (in the case of an Item of Power, when used in accordance with the Item's purpose) to negate the supernatural defenses (Recovery/Toughness powers and Physical Immunity - as if the character had satisfied the Catch), as well as mundane Armor*, of one opponent for the scene. Extra stress boxes without a Catch such as those provided by Hulking Size, and extra consequence slots from skills or stunts, are unaffected.

Cost: Normally, this power costs -5 Refresh. When applied to an item that will already satisfy a very common Catch (such as a holy item, or an iron/steel item), or a creature with equivalent powers (such as Holy Touch), its cost is reduced to -4. When applied to an item that will satisfy several common Catches (such as an item that is both holy and iron/steel), its cost drops to -3.

*Maybe this should go away; I'm not sure it's actually necessary for the Swords to do what they should do. What do you think?

[Viatos]

I do know who I am taking to.

I would respect you more if you just said "oh darn, I made a mistake" instead of trying to wriggle away with something like this:

Maybe you should re-read your own messages as you continue to insist that elements of the setting (the "fluff" as some call it) are not what the rules are trying to reflect.

This is not the same information that was just in discussion. I pointed out that it seems like you don't know which poster you're talking to because you attribute to me views that aren't mine. This right here IS my view, but not the one you were ascribing to me. The one you thought was mine before was not, and in fact data in opposition to your false supposition was present in the post you were replying to when you ascribed it to me.

I've been motivated before to ask you to slow down and make sure that you know what it is I've just said before you respond, and I'm doing so again. I don't need a reply right away; I'd rather have one that continues the conversation a week later then a rebuttal an hour later that makes no sense and is based off something someone else said ten pages ago.

If something has been established as an element of the DV then is part of the setting - and is something that the rules reflect.

Again, it's cool to build your own homebrew game around this idea, but it's not extant in the DFRPG. DFRPG is a game based on the Dresdenverse, but is not wedded to it. Novels contain no RAW and no influence beyond Evil Hat's use of them for inspiration. There's just no two ways about it.

DFRPG is a complete game. You do not need to know anything about the Dresdenverse to purchase and fully utilize DFRPG. Nothing established as part of the DV affects DFRPG unless and until it's added to the DFRPG by Evil Hat or by your own personal homebrew. You do not need to buy the novels to play the game. Their content is not needed to play the game.

For example: angels lack freewill, the Swords of the Cross are powered by focusing the belief of billions, etc.

You reject those elements as (to paraphrase) "not part of the rules" when in many ways they are the game.

I'd actually reject them because they're tenuous guesswork based on an unreliable narrator who is noted more then once as bad at understanding the true nature of things outside his paradigm. If you mean to say that things which are not part of the rules are not part of the rules then, yes, I'll accept that tautology. Elements that aren't present in DFRPG, aren't present in DFRPG. Sure, I agree with you on that.

 

In short, "Your problem is that you refuse to accept that the Dresden Files RPG is based in the DV."

I pointed out that you were mistaken in your assessment as politely as I could. You have, quite foolishly, repeated your false assertion as if you can just out-shout me over the internet. No, Richard. That won't do at all, I'm afraid. You're wrong and you're confused. This is not the position which I am taking. The DFRPG is based in the DV, and represents a complete subset with known content which remains internally consistent regardless of how the external DV changes and expands. The only thing that affects DFRPG is DFRPG content, which includes select material taken from the DV by Evil Hat. If it's not part of the game, it's not part of the game, unless and until it's added by homebrew or by future Evil Hat releases. I hope this clarifies things for you. It'll save us all time if we consider each poster as a distinct individual, rather then part of a collective faction based on who agrees with who every now and then.

[Richard_Chilton]

No, Richard. That won't do at all, I'm afraid. You're wrong and you're confused.

I am not trying to out shout you, nor am I confused.  I have constantly stated the same position.

The DFRPG is based in the DV, and represents a complete subset with known content which remains internally consistent regardless of how the external DV changes and expands. The only thing that affects DFRPG is DFRPG content, which includes select material taken from the DV by Evil Hat. If it's not part of the game, it's not part of the game, unless and until it's added by homebrew or by future Evil Hat releases. I hope this clarifies things for you. It'll save us all time if we consider each poster as a distinct individual, rather then part of a collective faction based on who agrees with who every now and then.

How can you possibly see the bold text as different from:

You reject those elements as (to paraphrase) "not part of the rules" when in many ways they are the game.  In short, "Your problem is that you refuse to accept that the Dresden Files RPG is based in the DV."

So I won't paraphrase.  Your issue is that you feel that "The only thing that affects DFRPG is DFRPG content, which includes select material taken from the DV by Evil Hat." when the game includes the entirety of the DV.

I am looking at the big picture and saying that "this is the game" while you are focusing on a teeny tiny piece (one that was limited by space constrants) and saying that is the game.

And a note:
Could you lay off the insults? You disagree with my position, fine - do that without insulting me.

Richard

[Sanctaphrax]

Untrue. I was also treating the fiction as rules until Viatos made a very good point.

I still prefer to treat the setting and background elements as laid out in "Your Story" as part of the RAW, and I use the descriptions and plot elements as context to inform the mechanics and the more rule-like rules.

Really? I must have missed that.

Anyway, please don't use the term RAW to refer to setting and background elements. The whole value of the term RAW is based off of excluding such things. The term Canon might be more useful in such a situation.

At one point I believe the majority of people here were concerned with the game as a whole (i.e. how to effectively model the DV) as opposed to focusing on isolated rules.

We still do that kind of stuff, dude.

On a related note, I feel like being concerned with the game only as it applies to the DV would not be being concerned with the game as a whole.

"Beating a Catch" is stronger, yes. But ACAEBG, as such, not so sure - since a hypothetical SotC without ACAEBG is already going to beat a huge proportion of Catches in the setting, being both holy and steel. Demons, Blampires, Rampires, fae, Denarians (except Nic), ghouls...

Because of the above, however, how many things does that affect that a non-ACAEBG-bearing steel, holy item wouldn't? White Court Vampires (who generally lack Toughness anyway) and the real heavyweights (HWWB-style Outsiders, Nic, Dragons, etc.) ... anything else?

Animals, wereforms, lycanthropes, zombies, unusual scions, Sidhe Knights, other Emissaries Of Power including Valkyries, other people using Items Of Power, people using Enchanted Items, people using mundane armour, some Red Court Infected, some White Court Virgins, golems and other magical constructs, people using protective spells, mythological creatures, maybe Fomor, ghosts, other spirits, and also other things that are either are either homebrew, yet-to-be-revealed, or just obscure.

It's not a short list.

And you know, saying that your Claws are steel is totally a-OK.

So it's really only that powerful if you regularly fight the very big powers (and not even all of those, even the highest-end Faeries still are vulnerable to iron, the Black Court Elders had most of the same weaknesses - though less to sunlight, etc.) So yes, I can see why it'd be worst in a really high-Refresh game.

Possibly -3 in situations like the Sword where its use would be fairly rare because most common Catches would already be covered; -4 in a situation such as just-Holy (a being with Holy Touch maybe) or on a non-Holy steel weapon; maybe -5 totally on its own?

Something like:
All Creatures Are Equal Before God [-5].

You can make attacks so infused with holy power that they pierce the mightiest defenses.

Musts: This power is generally found on an appropriate Item of Power (in the canon Dresdenverse, this means the Swords of the Cross, though in your campaign others may exist). To take this power directly (without an Item), a character must have a High Concept denoting a 'heavyweight' power of the Light, such as AVENGING ANGEL.  It's possible that in your particular setting certain other beings or mythoi might possess or grant equivalent powers, though so far there's no evidence of that in the Dresdenverse as we know it; in such a case, an appropriate High Concept is still required. (For example, Surtur's apocalyptic flaming sword might well be capable of destroying its target through any possible defense.)

Benefit: The character may spend a fate point (in the case of an Item of Power, when used in accordance with the Item's purpose) to negate the supernatural defenses (Recovery/Toughness powers and Physical Immunity - as if the character had satisfied the Catch), as well as mundane Armor*, of one opponent for the scene. Extra stress boxes without a Catch such as those provided by Hulking Size, and extra consequence slots from skills or stunts, are unaffected.

Cost: Normally, this power costs -5 Refresh. When applied to an item that will already satisfy a very common Catch (such as a holy item, or an iron/steel item), or a creature with equivalent powers (such as Holy Touch), its cost is reduced to -4. When applied to an item that will satisfy several common Catches (such as an item that is both holy and iron/steel), its cost drops to -3.

I still think that a weapon-value related adjustment should be included. Either that or explicit incompatibility with certain sources of extra damage.

I also dislike some aspects of this for semi-philosophical reasons, but I can suck that up.

*Maybe this should go away; I'm not sure it's actually necessary for the Swords to do what they should do. What do you think?

I think that might be a good idea.

[devonapple]

Anyway, please don't use the term RAW to refer to setting and background elements. The whole value of the term RAW is based off of excluding such things. The term Canon might be more useful in such a situation.

Perhaps you can, similarly, refrain from dismissing setting and story elements in the actual rulebook as "not RAW" just because they aren't where you'd prefer it to have been written.

[Sanctaphrax]

They are canon, but they're not RAW. The difference is important.

And calling something not RAW is leagues away from dismissing that thing. The RAW is not perfect. It's not even good sometimes.

[devonapple]

They are canon, but they're not RAW. The difference is important.

And calling something not RAW is leagues away from dismissing that thing. The RAW is not perfect. It's not even good sometimes.

Why is an element of the setting *not* a rule? How is text which informs the setting and how the game is played not a consideration? How can you justify privileging content from one paragraph over content from another, in the actual rulebook?

[Tedronai]

I am not trying to out shout you, nor am I confused.  I have constantly stated the same position.

How can you possibly see the bold text as different from:
So I won't paraphrase.  Your issue is that you feel that "The only thing that affects DFRPG is DFRPG content, which includes select material taken from the DV by Evil Hat." when the game includes the entirety of the DV.

I am looking at the big picture and saying that "this is the game" while you are focusing on a teeny tiny piece (one that was limited by space constrants) and saying that is the game.

Is it your express opinion, then, that a group having not read the novels, but having read YS and OW, cannot then properly or actually ever play the DFrpg?

[Sanctaphrax]

Why is an element of the setting *not* a rule? How is text which informs the setting and how the game is played not a consideration? How can you justify privileging content from one paragraph over content from another, in the actual rulebook?

Text which informs the setting, etc, is important.

But the distinction between rules and setting is very useful. It's not a rule of the game that there's a war against vampires happening. It's part of the setting.

If I choose to make Claws weapon 3, I'm not changing the setting. And if I choose to say that Harry Dresden died during Blood Rites, I'm not changing the rules.

If you don't distinguish between rules and setting, it becomes extremely difficult to discuss variations on the game. It also becomes incredibly difficult to discuss the quality of the rules and the setting. Because the rules or the setting often function as noise in the discussion of the other.

[Richard_Chilton]

Is it your express opinion, then, that a group having not read the novels, but having read YS and OW, cannot then properly or actually ever play the DFrpg?

No, it is not.

No two tables are going to be playing the same game.  YS Chapter 1 does a fantastic job of encapsulating the DV - as does OW.  OW is as a close to an 'Encyclopedia Dresden" or reader's guide to the series as we are likely to get.  It presents a clear picture of the DV up to the end of Small Favor.  It picks up on points that the causal reader might have missed and has entries on most of the named characters in the series.  I mean it has an entry for Maurice Sandbourne.  Who bothers to remember the name of Mr. Body from the comic? It even has his character sheet - one that gives him two aspects and an stunt.

Since the game books give enough information to run a game in the DV then anyone who buys them can run a game in the DV .  Other facts can add to the game, but (as advertised on the book cover) the game "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!"

Richard

[eri]

But the distinction between rules and setting is very useful. It's not a rule of the game that there's a war against vampires happening. It's part of the setting.

If I choose to make Claws weapon 3, I'm not changing the setting. And if I choose to say that Harry Dresden died during Blood Rites, I'm not changing the rules.

If you don't distinguish between rules and setting, it becomes extremely difficult to discuss variations on the game. It also becomes incredibly difficult to discuss the quality of the rules and the setting. Because the rules or the setting often function as noise in the discussion of the other.

I agree, important difference when you're discussing like this.
You seem to be needing some new terms. Maybe Setting from Rule-book and Setting from Canon? Setting Expressed in Rulebook & Setting Expressed in Cannon? SER & SEC?