Powers = Tools ?

[Richard_Chilton]

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 it's in the rulebook then it's a rule.

If you don't distinguish between rules and setting, it becomes extremely difficult to discuss variations on the game.

No it doesn't.  You start a thread entitled "In other time periods" or "Using DFRPG for the Iron Lands setting" or "Using the DFRPG for a space opera" or "Using DFRPG for the Buffyverse" or "Using DFRPG for generic urban fantasy".  That way everyone knows that you are discussing a variation on the game rather than DFRPG.

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.

For a licensed product, the quality of the rules is measured in how closely the rules model the licensed product.  I wouldn't expect an Anita Blake RPG without a huge section on sex and I'd be shocked to find the word sex in a Narnia RPG (unless it was referring to gender).

For a licensed product, any point where the mechanics of the game depart from the setting is a sign of failure.

But if you want to use the DFRPG to model another setting and maybe work out the states on the Blue Angels (from a great series of books) or to handle the Nightwatch series (a great series - where all supernaturals are either Dark or Light depending on their mindset when they stumbled on their powers) then that's fine.  That's wonderful.  Either setting would make a great game.

But that game wouldn't be DFRPG - it would be a variant of the DFRPG.

Richard

[ways and means]

Fate is a narrative based system as opposed to a simulationist system it is far better at showing DF style stories than simulating the DF setting at least in my opinion.   

[Tedronai]

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!"

Other 'facts' can add to the game regardless of their source.  Which such things DO add to a given game, though, is at the discretion of the individual gaming group.  This includes 'facts' taken from the novels.  And since the inclusion of those 'facts' is wholly discretionary, it would not be accurate to claim that they are a part of the game, and certainly not truthful to claim that they are part of the rules of that game.

[Richard_Chilton]

And since the inclusion of those 'facts' is wholly discretionary, it would not be accurate to claim that they are a part of the game, and certainly not truthful to claim that they are part of the rules of that game.

Again, we differ on this.

I respect the fact that you have your opinion (one that believe is wrong) and I expect the same from you.  Saying "I believe you are wrong" is one thing.  Saying "you are not being truthful" is another.

Richard

[vultur]

people using Enchanted Items ..  people using protective spells

Wait, does the Sword actually do that?  I'd never read it that way, but now that you mention it, it probably does. There's a bit of ambiguity here, IMO...

It says:
"the Knight may spend a fate point to ignore that opponent’s defensive abilities (Toughness based ones, primarily),
as well as any mundane armor the foe has" which does imply that it would.

But then it says "In essence, a Sword of the Cross may take the place of whatever it is that a creature has a weakness to (whatever “the Catch” is on their Toughness powers)" which would imply that it wouldn't ... OTOH, mundane armor doesn't have a Catch either, and it explicitly says it ignores that. So...

It's not a short list.

Good point.

I still think that a weapon-value related adjustment should be included.

This bugs me. It's one thing to get a lower price for future powers like Sponsored Magic if you have Evo or Thaum (or, I guess, a refund if you start with Sponsored, but it's the same thing as a lower price for the power bought later), but (effectively) raising the cost of Strength powers just because you also have a Sword of the Cross doesn't seem quite right.

Either that or explicit incompatibility with certain sources of extra damage.

Sounds better, but how would you word it to allow exceptional ... exceptions like Susan with the Sword in Changes?

I mean, for the Sword of the Cross itself it can be just part of the weapon's Divine Purpose, something like...

"This item exists largely to balance the scales between mortals - for this purpose, 'mortal' includes those with True Faith supernatural powers, and perhaps (at the GM's discretion - such cases should be considered carefully) those with a minimal measure of supernatural power, such as Minor Talents or White Court Virgins. While other beings can wield a Sword under temporary and extreme circumstances - so long as they retain mortal free will - they cannot be Knights of the Cross or otherwise use the sword for a significant period of time." 

But if we're treating it as a power that can exist elsewhere, what then? Assuming it's always something that is given 'from outside' (except at uberhigh refresh where it probably is irrelevant) I suppose variations of the above would work.

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

Can you expand on that? What else might be changed?

I think that might be a good idea.

Yeah, the point of the Swords is to strip away supernatural invulnerability. I don't see any reason for them to beat mundane armor. And (as above) the whole matter of them beating anything but powers with Catches (Toughness/Immunity/Recovery) is kind of weird/vaguely explained anyway. So I'd leave it out.

[Viatos]

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.

Right, but you understand why it's wrong to say this? The entirety of the game is within two books, soon to be three books. That's the big picture, as big as the picture can be, on what DFRPG actually is.

When you say that the DV is "part of" DFRPG, you mean "in the homebrew I've designed". That's where the confusion comes in, you use language like "this is the game" but it's not the game proper, actually, it's the property from which the complete game was distilled. That language is wrong and looks like it says something that's patently absurd, that Evil Hat somehow owns Jim Butcher's work or that anything in the novels automatically is part of DFRPG. But we know for a fact that that's untrue, all Evil Hat has is the license to produce what's in DFRPG, and all that exists in DFRPG is what THEY'VE produced. So when you imply something else it seems confusing, because, y'know, it's not the case and can't be argued. It's an untenable position, but you make it look like you're trying to take it.

[Richard_Chilton]

Right, but you understand why it's wrong to say this? The entirety of the game is within two books, soon to be three books. That's the big picture, as big as the picture can be, on what DFRPG actually is.

Again, we disagree.  The game is a model of the DV.

When you say that the DV is "part of" DFRPG, you mean "in the homebrew I've designed".

No, I am quoting from the rulebook.  The back cover, chapter one, etc.  Things that you seem to ignore because they do not fit with your preconceived notions.

That's where the confusion comes in, you use language like "this is the game" but it's not the game proper, actually, it's the property from which the complete game was distilled.

No, it is the property that game attempts to emulate.  Evil Hat did not take elements of the DV and turn them into a game but made a game that could handle the DV.

"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!"

Notice how it doesn't say "in the parts thrilling and dangerous world New York Times best-selling author Jim Butcher’s Dresden Files series that we have decided to include in the game"?

That language is wrong and looks like it says something that's patently absurd, that Evil Hat somehow owns Jim Butcher's work or that anything in the novels automatically is part of DFRPG.

You seem confused over the concept of a licensed product.  Jim owns Jim's work and has licensed Evil Hat to make a game that covers all of it.  Which is why the Paranet Papers will update the setting to the latest publish book (Ghost Story).

To be clear, no one except you has said that Evil Hat owns Jim's work - but all of Jim's work is covered by the license so is part of the Dresden Files RPG.

But we know for a fact that that's untrue, all Evil Hat has is the license to produce what's in DFRPG, and all that exists in DFRPG is what THEY'VE produced.

I'm sorry, but that's a false statement.  The fact is that Evil Hat has the license to produce the game based on Jim's work - not merely what is already in the game.  For proof, I offer the fact that the license hasn't been renegotiated and the Paranet Papers will update the setting to cover the most recent books - books that are currently not in the Dresden Files RPG.

So when you imply something else it seems confusing, because, y'know, it's not the case and can't be argued. It's an untenable position, but you make it look like you're trying to take it.

I know it is the case.  It is true and it can be argued.  You saying it is not untenable does not make it untenable.

What is untenable to say that somehow "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!" is a false statement without offering evidence to support your assertion.

Here's are additional quotes to support my position.  Feel free to try to counter them.

From the Ask Us Anything event:

The really hard part for me in approaching Dresden Files from a system design angle was nailing down what the conceptual underpinnings of the IP were. We didn't want to just take a bunch of vocab terms from the setting and attach dice to them, but instead, we wanted the design to reflect the philosophy of Jim's setting, the ideas, the kind of fiction that the Dresden Files tells.

So it didn't matter to me, for example, how much your actual PC group resembled or were different from Harry and his friends, or how much you interacted with anything that Harry knew or touched. What I wanted was an engine that applied a Jim Butcher filter onto whatever stories you wanted to tell, that could emergently create something that he might have made if he had your five brains working at the same time.

Fred, Rob, and I were very conscientious about that when we originally started talking about the design - I remember that a lot of the original discussions were about the ideas of the Dresden Files, the structure of them, how the story beats worked, what mattered about the fiction, before they were ever about "how much refresh does Supernatural Strength cost".

And I remember that being the most challenging part of the process for me - deciding on a value for "getting it right" as it applied to the Dresden Files, knowing that we had large expectations looming ahead. I think anyone who's putting together a licensed game needs to understand how powerful of a thing it is to "officially" represent that license.

Richard

[Tedronai]

Again, we differ on this.

I respect the fact that you have your opinion (one that believe is wrong) and I expect the same from you.  Saying "I believe you are wrong" is one thing.  Saying "you are not being truthful" is another.

Richard

If novel canon (as opposed to that canon included in YS and OW) is viewed as game rules, if their inclusion in a game is mandatory (non-discretionary), then those who do not have access to that material do not have access to the whole of the game.  Quotes you yourself have provided state explicitly that the game books provided everything (of that sort) necessary to play the game.
These two positions are mutually exclusive.  Only one is backed by the rules, their creators, or common sense.

[Viatos]

Yeah, that's basically all it needs to come down to. Either you understand that you do not need to purchase novels to own the complete DFRPG, or you do not.

This is the thing you keep doing that isn't going to get you anywhere: "No, you don't need to own the novels to own the game - I know that" and then "the novels are part of the game". It's one or the other. These cannot co-exist. And I'm not asking you to pick one - it's patently obvious which statement correlates to reality and which one does not.

[Praxidicae]

If it's in the rulebook then it's a rule.

Yeah....this is where you lost me.

Implying that because there are mentions of a vampire war = You must have a vampire ware in your game or you aren't playing DFRPG is just plain wrong.

If I decided to set my game pre Grave Peril, using completely canon-compliant characters, am I not playing DFRPG... Heck, in the "Ask Evil Hat anything" thread, you yourself mention that the Paranet papers will include rules for setting the game in the Russian Revolution (pretty sure that there wasn't Red Court/White Council war at that point)...does this mean that anyone using these rules "isn't playing DFRPG" despite the fact they are presented in a DFRPG core book? I think not, no more than a group playing a low-key game set after Grave Peril where the group's focus is on local threats and avoids the overarching Court/Council war entirely.

As to using the books as rules sources in general, I'm inclined to agree with Sanctaphrax on the differentiation between rules and setting, the books cannot provide rules (Jim didn't sit down and think "well I want to write a novel but I'd better keep in mind that someday, maybe people might want to make an RPG out of it"), they can however provide information about the intent behind certain mechanical (and in some cases non-mechanical) decisions made in YS and OW.

Purely on a pot-stirring note, what would your view be on a game set in the Dresden Files TV series universe. Although nominally a part of the Dresdenverse, there are important setting differences between this world and the one presented by the books (or the RPG).
Should a group introduced to the game through the tv series rather than the books decide to play in this universe, would they be playing a DFRPG game or not (the series is afterall a part of the published Dresden Multiverse)?

[Richard_Chilton]

This is the thing you keep doing that isn't going to get you anywhere: "No, you don't need to own the novels to own the game - I know that" and then "the novels are part of the game". It's one or the other. These cannot co-exist. And I'm not asking you to pick one - it's patently obvious which statement correlates to reality and which one does not.

Let's talk about D&D 3.5 for a second.  A partial listing of those books (no "setting" books like Monsters of Faerûn; no adventures that introduce new magic items, monsters, etc) is:

Arms and Equipment Guide
Book of Challenges
Book of Exalted Deeds
Cityscape
Complete Adventurer
Complete Arcane
Complete Champion
Complete Divine
Complete Divine
Complete Mage
Complete Psionic
Complete Scoundrel
Complete Warrior
Defenders of the Faith
Deities and Demigods
Draconomicon
Dragon Magic
Drow of the Underdark
Dungeon Master's Guide: Core Rulebook II
Dungeon Master's Guide II
Dungeonscape
Elder Evils
Enemies and Allies
Epic Level Handbook
Exemplars of Evil
Fiend Folio
Fiendish Codex I
Fiendish Codex II
Frostburn
Ghostwalk
Hero Builder's Guidebook
Heroes of Battle
Heroes of Horror
Libris Mortis: The Book of the Undead
Lords of Madness: The Book of Aberrations
Magic Item Compendium
Magic of Incarnum
Manual of the Planes
Miniatures Handbook
Monster Manual: Core Rulebook III
Monster Manual II
Monster Manual III
Monster Manual IV
Monster Manual V
Oriental Adventures
Planar Handbook
Player's Handbook
Player's Handbook II
Psionics Handbook
Races of Destiny
Races of Stone
Races of the Dragon
Races of the Wild
Rules Compendium
Sandstorm
Savage Species
Song and Silence
Spell Compendium
Manual of the Planes
Stormwrack    
Stronghold Builder's Guidebook
Sword and Fist
Tome and Blood
Tome of Battle
Tome of Magic

Does anyone want to dispute that these are all part of the D&D 3.5 rules? Anyone?

Is  that the same as saying that you need each and every book listed above before you can start playing the game? Of course not.  You pick up the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual and you're good to go.  But no one can say that all of those books are not part of the game known as D&D 3.5.

Which is why stating that the entire DV is part of the DFRPG does not mean that you have to read all the DF books.  Your table will put it's own spin on things, but since I am currently concealing my vast power of telepathic communication from the world there is no way I can comment on your home game without revealing that I'm reading the minds of all your players and...

Opps, well, let's ignore that last bit as I restate the fact since we don't know what each other is adding and subtracting at our tables, all we can do is comment on the base game.

Richard

[UmbraLux]

Just asking for clarification - I don't think any of those are novels.  Wasn't it inclusion of novels as rules which was being objected to?

[devonapple]

Wasn't it inclusion of novels as rules which was being objected to?

If I understand it correctly, the primary objection was restricting player options based solely on setting elements from the canonical novels (SEC), with a secondary add-on objection to restricting player options based on setting elements from the DFRPG books (SER) which (though contained within the RPG books) had not been sufficiently codified as rules in a way that makes them applicable to a RAW discussion.

[Viatos]

Does anyone want to dispute that these are all part of the D&D 3.5 rules? Anyone?

Yeah, a bunch of those are 3.0 unupdated material. So you're already off to a weak start.

Where your analogy becomes so anemic that it dies of heart failure, unable even to pump its own blood, is that all the actual 3.5 material on that list is an expansion to DnD 3.5 licensed and published by WotC. Trying to compare published expansion material in DnD 3.5 to the novels DFRPG is based on is apples and oranges, no comparison possible. It's like comparing a cooking manual to a picture of a cake.

[Richard_Chilton]

Just asking for clarification - I don't think any of those are novels.  Wasn't it inclusion of novels as rules which was being objected to?

I was replying to those who believed I was stating that it required to read all of the novels before running again.  Please read the quote below - the one that I quoted in the post above.  In case others have missed it, I'll bold the most relevant part:   

This is the thing you keep doing that isn't going to get you anywhere: "No, you don't need to own the novels to own the game - I know that" and then "the novels are part of the game". It's one or the other. These cannot co-exist. And I'm not asking you to pick one - it's patently obvious which statement correlates to reality and which one does not.

I'm pointing out that statements of "you don't need to own all those D&D 3.5 books to own the game" and "those D&D 3.5 books are all part of the game" are both true and can co-exist.  Basically, I'm drawing a parallel between that and my statements that 'you don't need to own all the novels' and 'the entire DV is part of the game'.

Combined, the two rulebooks have enough info about the DV to run a game.  They explain Harry's World in YS, they list what is it what (and who is who) in the DV in OW, and OW includes things that the average reader will have forgotten.  Of course they don't do it in exhaustive detail - for that you need the novels.

The novels, that are the source of the game.  They are what the rules attempt to emulate.  Anything you can point at and "See, it works differently in the game than in the novels" is a failure of the game.  Something that needs to be patched - patched by giving Listens To Wind greater shapeshifting or The Gatekeeper the worldwalker power, as has been suggested by the designers.

Richard