Ways to achieve a 100 shift rituals

[Tedronai]

Alternatively, mandating that some minimum proportion of shifts (probably scaling non-linearly) are channeled into the spell in a given exchange, or limiting the number of exchanges available in which to channel those shifts (a different direction taken to the same end) works well to put a 'soft' limit on the power of thaumaturgic rituals, while also substantially increasing the (normally lacking) usefulness of thaumaturgy control bonuses.

[AstronaughtAndy]

To go along with that, you could probably compel them to put more than the minimum shifts in, due to issues of concentration or endurance. If each exchange is lasting x amount of time, eventually they will presumably get tired/hungry/lose concentration/lose shifts from sunrise/etc.

[Orladdin]

Personally, I like the constant threat that failure poses-- especially in the big rituals.  The problem in RAW is that once you hit 5 Discipline, this danger essentially vanishes*.  I think building in a mechanic to preserve this threat would be sufficient enough to prevent abuse while keeping all the flavor of the declarations/co-operative atmosphere described in the books.  It would also limit the number of different places we would need to inject additional, restrictive rules into.

If we go this route, this could be something simple, such as simply hand-waving that a roll of [-,-,-,-] is always a failure (though, I've never been a big fan of such things).  Or, by obfuscating it a little more, something like limiting the maximum number of exchanges before energy starts to bleed-off out of the spell based on their Discipine skill versus the difficulty of the ritual.
EDIT: Tedronai already more clearly stated this concept, above:

Alternatively, mandating that some minimum proportion of shifts (probably scaling non-linearly) are channeled into the spell in a given exchange, or limiting the number of exchanges available in which to channel those shifts (a different direction taken to the same end) works well to put a 'soft' limit on the power of thaumaturgic rituals, while also substantially increasing the (normally lacking) usefulness of thaumaturgy control bonuses.

I'm not convinced, though, that this is the only way.  I really like some of the other ideas people have posted so far.  When I get a minute, I'll respond to them directly.




*_{Unless you're trying Thaum while under pressure.  In which case, wtf is wrong with you?}

[DFJunkie]

See, the balance to those massive rituals is narrative, not mechanical.  If a player is using a massive ritual there’s no reason not to impose some sort of time constraint that will prevent him from breaking up the casting into X rolls that he can’t fail.  Alternatively you could an assault on the party during the casting, depriving them of their artillery while the sweating caster desperately tries to finish the spell in time. 

[Orladdin]

See, the balance to those massive rituals is narrative, not mechanical.  If a player is using a massive ritual there’s no reason not to impose some sort of time constraint that will prevent him from breaking up the casting into X rolls that he can’t fail.  Alternatively you could an assault on the party during the casting, depriving them of their artillery while the sweating caster desperately tries to finish the spell in time.

I know that's the intention, but it shouldn't require a masterful GM to always spackle a massive mechanical hole on-the-fly. 

Besides, doesn't it stretch credulity that every time the party starts to cast ritual X, someone comes by to throw a wrench in their plans?  After the second or third time, wouldn't they start taking more actions to prevent random passerby N from showing up?  If they do, do you still try to interrupt them, no matter how improbable they make an interruption?

[Orladdin]

...
Kill 5 People (20 shifts a piece)

I like the ideas posed above for having a character's "value" (their number of consequences, and thereby their plot importance) determine the amount they provide to a ritual. 

The problem with the making sacrifices who're nameless count for less is, well, in-universe, what makes Lt. Murphy a more potent sacrifice for a particular spell than the nameless Lieutenant heading up Homicide? It's kind of implying that a named character's life is worth more than the extras. I kinda like the idea that stopping Evil McBadguy from sacrificing a random innocent victim is just as important as saving Lois Lane.

That depends-- is the ritual using Lt. Murphy targeting Dresden (or someone who cares for her)?  Or is it targeting someone who doesn't know Lt. Murphy?
Sure, the average joe is as important as Lois Lane-- but not if you're Superman.  If the ritual is targeting Superman, using his love/girlfriend/wife (depending on your story arc) would reasonably add more to the ritual in-question.  There's a metaphysical connection there.

Also, there should probably be diminishing returns applied.  The first sacrifice is worth the most, each one after it is diminished by 10% or what-have-you.  That way, you never reach a point where killing additional people is pointless, but it becomes necessary to kill more and more people to get the same benefit.  See: Chicken Pizza.

Kill 50 Animals (2 shifts a piece)

This should, wihtout a doubt, suffer diminishing returns.

Make 30-50 decelerations and sacrifice yourself up to a severe.

Seems legit... but I do think a set of general guidelines should have been worded into the RPG about limiting the number of times each character can use each skill for declarations.  Or imposing diminishing returns on those declarations.  Or imposing ever-higher difficulties on the successive declarations on the same skill, showing ever-increasing difficulty of getting high enough quality components or whatever.

Spend 99 scenes doing nothing. 

I think people misinterpret the developers' intention with the "sit out a scene" option-- and I honestly wonder why.  Of all the stuff in DFRPG that isn't spelled out explicitly, I seem to remember there being a couple paragraphs or even a whole sidebar on when this is and why it isn't appropriate.  It seems like it was intended more as a "I have 1 or two odd shifts left and we need someone to run for pizza anyway.  Rather than sit here and figure out the 20th convoluted way I can augment my abilities, can we just say I finish it while I'm gone?" and not as a "Haha, I can simply join the game two years into the campaign as an unstoppable, ascended deity!"
Finally, as others have already pointed out, your interpretation rewards people for un-fun.  Sitting out is un-fun.  Don't allow it.

[Mr. Death]

I know that's the intention, but it shouldn't require a masterful GM to always spackle a massive mechanical hole on-the-fly. 

Besides, doesn't it stretch credulity that every time the party starts to cast ritual X, someone comes by to throw a wrench in their plans?  After the second or third time, wouldn't they start taking more actions to prevent random passerby N from showing up?  If they do, do you still try to interrupt them, no matter how improbable they make an interruption?

I think that's where my idea can help--if you limit the number of declarations and invokes they can make, that means they have to go out and get them, so the attacks/wrench throwings can also come in before the casting starts. If the party has to literally fight for every +2 after a certain point (because one can assume that gathering up the first bunch of components is going to get someone's attention), that's going to limit how much they can gather.

As for the Lois Lane thing, it would add a connection factor, but not necessarily any more power.

But, I would argue that maybe a pure mortal sacrifice might be worth less than a wizard--in Death Masks, Nicodemus says he grabbed Harry because he needed a sacrifice of a particular metaphysical mass. So maybe sacrifices with supernatural powers might add to the shift count.

[DFJunkie]

Besides, doesn't it stretch credulity that every time the party starts to cast ritual X, someone comes by to throw a wrench in their plans? 

Depends on the ritual and how important it is to the plot.  If completing the ritual is necessary for the story to continue then why worry about it?  Let it happen and narrate it effectively with the help of the players to make it seem cool and fun.  If it's a giant "I win" button then yeah, it needs to be stoppable, because that's how stories work.  Now, maybe the ritual is basically the denouement and collecting the various components was the meat of the story.  If that's the case then, again, just let it happen, as above.  But if the completion of the spell is the climax of the story then yes, there should be "rising action" leading up to it, and your players will probably expect that. 

From the sound of things people are afraid of or have experience with players who use massive thaumaturgical workings to derail the game, and "win" at no cost to their characters.  If that's the case, then it's the players who're an issue.  Yes, it's unfortunate that the mechanics give them the opportunity to do so, but that same freedom empowers good players to do cool things in service to the story they tell with the GM. 

After the second or third time, wouldn't they start taking more actions to prevent random passerby N from showing up?  If they do, do you still try to interrupt them, no matter how improbable they make an interruption?

This depends on the nature of ritual x.  Is it some sort of good luck ritual that the players cast before every important conflict?  If so, let it happen, who cares.  If it’s the magical head exploding ritual they use whenever they come into conflict with non-humans then yeah, there should be some pushback.  As above, if getting the link is the hard part then the ritual should be easy.  If the link is easy to obtain then yeah, there should be complications during the casting.  Maybe it was a trap, or maybe the nasty in question has a guardian demon who can sense those sorts of energies building and reroute them, say into an orphanage.  Whatever makes for a good and fun story works. 

[Becq]

Besides, doesn't it stretch credulity that every time the party starts to cast ritual X, someone comes by to throw a wrench in their plans?  After the second or third time, wouldn't they start taking more actions to prevent random passerby N from showing up?  If they do, do you still try to interrupt them, no matter how improbable they make an interruption?

How about people calling for donations for charities or selling double-paned windows or some such at the point in the ritual where the most concentration is required?  And amazingly, their calls always come through loud and clear, despite the odds of being hexed...

Even if the caster doesn't own a working phone.

[crusher_bob]

I'll put these up again, since I see some new names that might not have seen them before.

[Silverblaze]

I like a lot fo the ideas here.

My take on it so far:

Make declarations increasing harder.

Have sentient sacrifices matter to varying degrees. (I kinda like Oralddin's view on this)

Sacrificing animals should have diminishing returns and be useless in some cases...maybe more potent in others. The sacrifice needs to fit the spell.

Sacrificing random animals to increase the impact of a city wide lust spell - likely not useufl.  (certain animals maybe)

 Sacrificing people to get folks horny should only effect a select few (creepy!) people.

The GM really needs to figure out what will work and what won't in regards to each spell.  Thaumaturgy may let a player do anything...doesn't mean it should be as easy as a numbers game.  It also doesn't mean the Gm doesn't get a say.  I think Thaum requires a lot of give and take on behalf of the GM and players.


sit out 99 scenes.  Scenes have arbitrary length.  Each table is going to have to settle this one - however orladdin made a good point about this.

 I think it isn't always about scenes  - I'm willing to go on a soda/pizza/beer run. I'll spend my gas and to some extent my money to not break up the flow of game and acquire much needed sustenance or vices for my fellow players and GM.  I will be gone for 10 minutes to an hour.  Please let me finish my last X shifts.  Now I know X should be a reasonable number, but if the group is okay with getting 50 shifts of power for free pizza/smokes/beer/soda/ whatever; then that is their (foolish imo) choice.

 I know to some small extent this is getting into bribery, however what games don't support that to some small extent?  "Hey so and so, I am lazy you seem to need 97 exp to level up in the D&D game i am current;y running.  I'll grant this exp if you go grab me a soda from the fridge."  This game itself has a built in bribery system in compells and escalation of compells.  " You don't wanna take my compel?  How about 2 fate points?  No....  how about 3?"

[mithrandirthewhite]

This may have been mentioned already, but one way to prevent insane spell casting is to have the GM say that if I let you do this once, I get to do this when ever I can.  My GM is scary, therefore that threat works.

[Silverblaze]

This may have been mentioned already, but one way to prevent insane spell casting is to have the GM say that if I let you do this once, I get to do this when ever I can.  My GM is scary, therefore that threat works.

Yeah.  That works in many games also.  I don't so much like players vs DM/GM mentality...but making sure the players know that turnabout is fairplay can be a deterrent.

[Lamech]

I'll put these up again, since I see some new names that might not have seen them before.

Yeah, something like that deals with the declaration issue, and it also makes control bonuses really helpful, since you need 6 for perfect control. It doesn't address the mass sacrifice issue. Either real lives, or a bunch of consequences from the party.

[AstronaughtAndy]

I feel that as sacrifices go, there should be diminishing to no returns on creatures/beings that have no link to your target. Ie. gacking random homeless guys will not help you prepare a spell to target the Merlin. Which we maybe see in action at Chicken Pizza.

Another thing that sort of bothers me about the magic system is that it doesnt really take range into account. I'm working on a distance scale for my games which wouldnt really decrease the power of thaumaturgy, but it does put extra potential shifts of backlash/fallout into play. Does anyone else require shifts of power to increase spell range?