Template Balance

[Viatos]

This, this, a thousand times, this. The game isn't made to have everything perfectly balanced so that every template stands an equal chance to be viable in every situation. It's made to reflect the setting of The Dresden Files, where Pure Mortals can get by against your average supernatural (but get stomped by things with significant power), where White Court and Werewolves can hold their own if they're good or lucky, and where the Wizards who sling around the power of the elements with a wave of their staffs can stomp the shit out of things that would eat (literally) the mortals and the werewolves.

Which is bad game design, and creates false dichotomies during character creation. One character type should not be able to edge out the rest. It's fine to have specialties, but wizards don't have specialties - they're amazing at everything between thaumaturgy and evocation.

As for keeping Wizards from being all powerful, there's a lot you can do a lot to keep them in line. Compel them to say that spells above a certain weapon rating will kill for that scene. Throw things at them that they'll need to use magic just to defend against. Give them enemies that know how to neutralize magic in some fashion.

There's very little that can be done to keep them in line. For example, you can't compel a wizard with 1 refresh to use magic to kill if he doesn't already have Lawbreaker - you'd be violating the social contract governing compels, it's exactly the same as if you tried to compel him to have an instantly-fatal aneurysm. You're being a bad GM and they have every right to call you out on it.

Powers which can threaten a wizard's persistent defense rotes can roflstomp the rest of the party, so that's also a bad option. You're creating a new tier of play to challenge one character that other characters can't get in on.

They're extremely powerful, especially if you give them time to prepare, but a Wizard is as squishy as the pure mortal standing next to them--they've got plenty of weaknesses too.

A wizard is far tankier then the pure mortal standing next to them, because they can do things like create a 9-shift block that lasts four rounds.

[devonapple]

Which is bad game design, and creates false dichotomies during character creation. One character type should not be able to edge out the rest. It's fine to have specialties, but wizards don't have specialties - they're amazing at everything between thaumaturgy and evocation.

Maybe bad game design for a generic urban fantasy RPG, but it fits the setting.

[CottbusFiles]

Which is bad game design, and creates false dichotomies during character creation. One character type should not be able to edge out the rest. It's fine to have specialties, but wizards don't have specialties - they're amazing at everything between thaumaturgy and evocation.

But all characters are not created equal.When i creat a 9 refresh mortal character he has way more influence over the story then the wizard. The wizard has not even control over himself because he constantly has to take compels why the other players declares stuff left and right.

A wizard is STRONG and SCARY in combat (if build this way) but not every situation dissolves to combat.
Fate is story first and balance second,

[Mr. Death]

I'm going to assume, for the sake of a standard, that we're discussing Submerged-level games.

Which is bad game design, and creates false dichotomies during character creation. One character type should not be able to edge out the rest. It's fine to have specialties, but wizards don't have specialties - they're amazing at everything between thaumaturgy and evocation.

Untrue. Wizards have specialties within and between those. It'd be rare to find someone who's "amazing" at both Evocation and Thaumaturgy at your basic Submerged game, and at that level, you don't get "amazing" in all sets of Evocation--not without neglecting something, such as enchanted items or defense.

There's very little that can be done to keep them in line. For example, you can't compel a wizard with 1 refresh to use magic to kill if he doesn't already have Lawbreaker - you'd be violating the social contract governing compels, it's exactly the same as if you tried to compel him to have an instantly-fatal aneurysm. You're being a bad GM and they have every right to call you out on it.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying, after the fact, compelling a wizard to say, "Well, you hit that mook with a Weapon:4 fireblast, he's dead." I'm saying you compel, at the start of the scene, to say, "These are human mooks. If you hit them with anything Weapon:4 or higher, they're going to die from it." Then it's still entirely the player's choice as to whether or not he kills--but at the same time, it stops him from flattening a room with a zone-wide Weapon:6 attack.

Powers which can threaten a wizard's persistent defense rotes can roflstomp the rest of the party, so that's also a bad option. You're creating a new tier of play to challenge one character that other characters can't get in on.

Not necessarily. A couple maneuvers and an already-decent attack roll is good enough to get through most blocks.

A wizard is far tankier then the pure mortal standing next to them, because they can do things like create a 9-shift block that lasts four rounds.

Unless the wizard is purely Defensively minded, they're not going to be able to pull that block out without taking a solid consequence or spending several fate points. Which means they're going to be flagging behind on offense.

A wizard who can throw out a 12-shift spell on Defense without getting a consequence for it is going to need Focus items for it--which means they can't do the same for offense. And it means barring a good dice roll, they're going to be taking consequences just for casting in the first place. And it means if they're throwing all their specializations, focus items, and skills into Evocation, they're going to be far from "amazing" at Thaumaturgy, and they won't have much room for Enchanted items if their shield fails.

Yes, a Wizard can throw out a lot of power at once but A. they have to control it, too, and B. they're not going to be able to do everything on the same level.

[devonapple]

There are so many things a Wizard *can* do, but the cost of doing them is really high. 4-, 6- and 8-stress Consequences are sticking around for awhile, and each one means the Wizard is more likely to have to Concede a later conflict.

When a Wizard has the green light to lay down some serious firepower (no humans in the firing zone - just inhuman opponents), yes, it can be brutal and decisive. But those situations are usually uncommon, if a GM is setting up conflicts properly. And taking a 4-, 6- and 8-stress Consequence to fuel a Block spell is... well, it would have to be a pretty good reason.

[Mr. Death]

Just to do some math here, again, assuming a Submerged level game.

Conviction and Discipline at 5.
Base specialization in Evocation, +1 to Spirit power.
4 Focus Item slots
4 Specializations from 2 Refinements.

You need effective Conviction at 9 and Discipline at 8 to cast a 12-shift spell without a consequence, assuming a full Physical stress track.

Spirit Power can be brought up to 2, because you need at least 6 specializations to have one +3. That means one Specialization can go into Spirit Control. That puts us at C:7/D:6, with four focus item slots left. To create that 12-shift spell without any consequences, therefore, you have to put two of the focus item slots into Discipline, two into Conviction, and you would probably make it a Rote to be safe. This lets you just barely cast the spell with a 4-shift hit to the Mental and Physical stress tracks.

Alternatively, you could make the focus item into something that only works with this rote, which would allow you to boost either Conviction or Discipline by another +1, so it'd be a 3 and 4 shift hit--but that may not be advisable since it means you can't use the focus item for other stuff.

So now you've got a wizard who can cast--once--an almost unbeatable shield (which is still beatable by anyone who rolls really well from 5) for four rounds. He has no armor (no enchanted item slots left), so if that shield fails, he's in trouble. He can cast some fairly impressive Spirit evocations--especially on Defense--but his other elements are lagging behind. Thaumaturgy is left out entirely. He has one focus item that is only useful on defense--and if his shield rote fails, he can't cast it again without at least one Mild consequence.

A more balanced character, who spreads his focus items and specializations around to account for defense and offense in equal measure, or devotes some of his resources to Thaumaturgy, isn't going to be able to cast 12-shifts of anything in Evocation without taking serious consequences.

[sinker]

Compel them to say that spells above a certain weapon rating will kill for that scene.

I'm just going to say this quickly because I know it's off topic, but it's one of my pet peeves.

Weapon rating is not a representation of the lethality of a spell. It is a representation of the effectiveness of a spell. If I throw out a weapon:15 sleep gas spell, or similar it is not more lethal than a weapon:4 fireball. It is simply better at taking things out.

Additionally if I throw a weapon:15 fireball at someone and I take them out, it is entirely possible that I never hit them. Just because I rolled over their defense does not mean that the attack physically hit them. It just means that I dealt that much stress. It is the events afterwards (the taking of consequences or concession/taken out result) that determine if I actually struck them.

[Mr. Death]

I know all that--that's why I'm framing it as a compel instead of as a rule. The player either gets a fate point for some added difficulty to the scene, or they spend a fate point to buy out, and can feel free to blast away without consequence.

[sinker]

I just feel it's a compel that is weakened by it's own... Vagueness? Lack of proper definitive guidelines?

It's ill defined.

[Mr. Death]

How do you think it might be improved, then? For reference, when I did this and similar compels, maneuvers and blocks and stuff were still fair game.

[Tedronai]

Well, the first obvious improvement that springs to my mind would be to alter the wording in such a way as to exclude effects that would not plausibly result in death.  Weaponized sleep spells are the obvious go-to, here.
The next improvement I would make would be to divorce the effect from weapon value at all.

The end result would be something along the lines of:
'any attacks resulting in a taken-out result that would likely cause the death of their targets if those targets suffered the full effect of that attack, will, for the duration of this scene, include the death of that target in the taken-out result'

It's still clumsily worded, but it's more consistent.
It excludes things like sleep spells while affecting both blasts of flame as well as stabbings, gunshots etc.
It forces characters not simply to use less power in their attacks, but to use it more carefully, through the use of declarations, maneuvers, and creative descriptions.

[sinker]

Firstly the aspect being compelled is very important. Normally I'm very liberal with how compels work (I've even compelled without an aspect, but I guess that was just me skipping some formalities), but in this case I would need a clearly defined aspect that directly creates a lack of control. Something like "Flammable gases" would be a good external aspect, or a consequence of "Enraged", or a personal aspect like "Fire is a fickle master".

Secondly I would probably limit their attack options entirely. "If you attack with fire, there's a good chance someone will get seriously hurt." It creates a clearly defined narrative trigger without using a conceptually vague meta-trigger like "How much stress you deal."

Lastly I would never do this compel unless the wizard had the Fate points to buy it off (or I would offer them debt to buy it off). This kind of thing if done well can lead to great drama (drama that many players would embrace and enjoy), but if done poorly it's just you picking on the wizard because you feel he's too powerful (which is actually what most people seem to be doing here, and it's a bit of a jerk move).

[Mr. Death]

Well, the first obvious improvement that springs to my mind would be to alter the wording in such a way as to exclude effects that would not plausibly result in death.  Weaponized sleep spells are the obvious go-to, here.
The next improvement I would make would be to divorce the effect from weapon value at all.

The end result would be something along the lines of:
'any attacks resulting in a taken-out result that would likely cause the death of their targets if those targets suffered the full effect of that attack, will, for the duration of this scene, include the death of that target in the taken-out result'

It's still clumsily worded, but it's more consistent.
It excludes things like sleep spells while affecting both blasts of flame as well as stabbings, gunshots etc.
It forces characters not simply to use less power in their attacks, but to use it more carefully, through the use of declarations, maneuvers, and creative descriptions.

So, maybe something like, "Physical attack spells"? That handily excludes sleep spells (which I admittedly overlooked because my players tend to--if they use attack evocations, it's almost always fireballs and lightning bolts), and is a bit less clumsy.

I still kinda want to use the weapon rating, though, because it's an easy, cut and dry way to delineate what's kosher and what's not, and is representative of a wizard holding back by using less power. Plus it plays into that fine line a wizard is treading when using magic against mortals--hit them too hard, you could break the first law, don't hit them hard enough and they'll get at least one more chance to beat your face in. And thirdly, if the way to get around the limits of a compel is as easy as "Okay, it's a blunt blast of air, not a spear," while keeping everything else equal, the compel really isn't changing anything about how the fight would go.

Firstly the aspect being compelled is very important. Normally I'm very liberal with how compels work (I've even compelled without an aspect, but I guess that was just me skipping some formalities), but in this case I would need a clearly defined aspect that directly creates a lack of control. Something like "Flammable gases" would be a good external aspect, or a consequence of "Enraged", or a personal aspect like "Fire is a fickle master".

Secondly I would probably limit their attack options entirely. "If you attack with fire, there's a good chance someone will get seriously hurt." It creates a clearly defined narrative trigger without using a conceptually vague meta-trigger like "How much stress you deal."

Lastly I would never do this compel unless the wizard had the Fate points to buy it off (or I would offer them debt to buy it off). This kind of thing if done well can lead to great drama (drama that many players would embrace and enjoy), but if done poorly it's just you picking on the wizard because you feel he's too powerful (which is actually what most people seem to be doing here, and it's a bit of a jerk move).

Good points. The time I used something like this and it worked out the best was along those lines--compelled a personal aspect (the character was an apprentice and only had Lightning at her disposal) to make her not directly attack, and the player got creative with blocks and maneuvers to win the fight instead.

[ways and means]

So, maybe something like, "Physical attack spells"? That handily excludes sleep spells (which I admittedly overlooked because my players tend to--if they use attack evocations, it's almost always fireballs and lightning bolts), and is a bit less clumsy.

I still kinda want to use the weapon rating, though, because it's an easy, cut and dry way to delineate what's kosher and what's not, and is representative of a wizard holding back by using less power. Plus it plays into that fine line a wizard is treading when using magic against mortals--hit them too hard, you could break the first law, don't hit them hard enough and they'll get at least one more chance to beat your face in. And thirdly, if the way to get around the limits of a compel is as easy as "Okay, it's a blunt blast of air, not a spear," while keeping everything else equal, the compel really isn't changing anything about how the fight would go.
Good points. The time I used something like this and it worked out the best was along those lines--compelled a personal aspect (the character was an apprentice and only had Lightning at her disposal) to make her not directly attack, and the player got creative with blocks and maneuvers to win the fight instead.

The problem with focusing on weapon's rating is that it hits conviction based mages (like Harry) far more than discipline based ones (discipline already add's to damage nearly twice as effectively than conviction and also adds to hit) so you are increasing the games natural bias towards control type wizards who are already much more effective than power type.   

[Mr. Death]

The problem with focusing on weapon's rating is that it hits conviction based mages (like Harry) far more than discipline based ones (discipline already add's to damage nearly twice as effectively than conviction and also adds to hit) so you are increasing the games natural bias towards control type wizards who are already much more effective than power type.

That makes sense, though. Someone with a lot of power and little control is naturally going to have more difficulty in a situation where they have to hold back than someone with less power and a lot of control.