Extremely High Complexity Rituals

[ways and means]

I was wondering how high the complexity people would give plot device rituals?

For example how much complexity would you need to do a higurashi by which I mean seal off a area of about 5 miles in a time bubble that repeats every time everyone inside it dies. I was estimating that would take about 400 complexity with an effective duration of until the end of time, +50 complexity over about 50 zones, and about 300 shifts to do the time repeat trick.     

How much Complexity would you need to set every officer in the Chinese army on fire assuming you had a uniform as a focus, again this seems about 30 for effect and then an hard to estimate amount to effect all the people wearing the same uniform probably about 20, so a 50 shift ritual.     

[Tedronai]

I was wondering how high the complexity people would give plot device rituals?

For example how much complexity would you need to do a higurashi by which I mean seal off a area of about 5 miles in a time bubble that repeats every time everyone inside it dies. I was estimating that would take about 400 complexity with an effective duration of until the end of time, +50 complexity over about 50 zones, and about 300 shifts to do the time repeat trick.     

Enough to guarantee a taken-out result on the beefiest target in the target area (30-60), plus enough to spread that effect over the area (you say 50, ok) plus enough to ward that area well enough that you're satisfied it won't be breached ('seal it off'; probably at least 20) plus duration for that ward (really, around 50 should do it; the whole of the time chart is only 24 steps ranging from 'an instant' to 'several lifetimes' in an exponential growth).  0 shifts for the fluff effect of the time loop.
total ranging from approximately 100 to well over 130 depending on the resilience/importance of the occupants and how impenetrable you want the 'seal' to be

How much Complexity would you need to set every officer in the Chinese army on fire assuming you had a uniform as a focus, again this seems about 30 for effect and then an hard to estimate amount to effect all the people wearing the same uniform probably about 20, so a 50 shift ritual.     

probably about 30 for the effect itself, at least 2 for the target selectivity, + some large number for the area you wish to spread the effect over (unless you really want to be paying for each target individually in a 'spray attack')
well over 50

[Jimmy]

If we were talking about a ritual as a plot device, why give it a mechanic at all? If it's got stats it kind of puts it into the realm of 'regularly doable with time/resources/will'. All you'd need to do is drop hints and clues about some of the processes that went in to creating the effect. Remember that a thaumaturgical preparation phase is sometimes a story in itself, and I see no reason why the unravelling of said ritual would be anything else but a story.

I'm assuming the question is posed as an idea you've had in creating strife for characters in a game, rather than a example of how the rules would work. Unless it was something a player was trying to accomplish, I would leave the mechanics out of it and instead focus on obstacles the players would need to overcome to thwart ( love that word ) the villain's villainous villainy.

[Sanctaphrax]

If we were talking about a ritual as a plot device, why give it a mechanic at all?

If it has no mechanics, you can't interact with it using the rules.

Suppose I want to counterspell a "plot device". Which seems like a likely situation to me.

If there are no mechanics, then there's no way to know how hard it'll be to counterspell.

[UmbraLux]

I was wondering how high the complexity people would give plot device rituals?

For example how much complexity would you need to do a higurashi by which I mean seal off a area of about 5 miles in a time bubble that repeats every time everyone inside it dies. I was estimating that would take about 400 complexity with an effective duration of until the end of time, +50 complexity over about 50 zones, and about 300 shifts to do the time repeat trick.     

How much Complexity would you need to set every officer in the Chinese army on fire assuming you had a uniform as a focus, again this seems about 30 for effect and then an hard to estimate amount to effect all the people wearing the same uniform probably about 20, so a 50 shift ritual.     

I tend to think this type of thing is meaningless - if nothing else, the numbers simply get too large.  The first ritual is going to have to cover far more than 50 zones.  A zone is an area small enough to allow melee combat between inhabitants - not a significant fraction of a mile.  The second ritual needs to pay for each officer targeted - with a military of ~2.2 million, the officers alone number somewhere over 100,000 - and you'll pay more than one shift each.  Assuming you have appropriate symbolic links - which a generic uniform wouldn't supply in many cases.

If it has no mechanics, you can't interact with it using the rules.

Suppose I want to counterspell a "plot device". Which seems like a likely situation to me.

If there are no mechanics, then there's no way to know how hard it'll be to counterspell.

This seems to be either a disingenuous argument or a misunderstanding of "plot device" - "...an object or character in a story whose sole purpose is to advance the plot of the story, or alternatively to overcome some difficulty in the plot."

[Jimmy]

That can also be a good thing though, too, being able to break down a plot device into numbers takes away the mystery of it. Making it instead something that the players only have a partial understanding of, like that it must have taken a LOT of complexity and time to create, produces plot hooks itself. You know that with lots of complexity its going to take a long time to cast safely, so gives a rough deadline when the party has to disrupt the plans. I remember many years ago in my early military career being told that there will be inspections in the barracks sometime in the afternoon produced a hell of a lot more stress and tension than being told they were coming at 1600 haha.

Not having a definitive mechanic for the device also gives you as GM a lot more creative freedom in how to deal with it. I also know that some groups LOVE breaking down everything and looking for the angle so if your group likes that aspect then I guess it wouldn't hurt to work it out. I wouldn't personally though, its just my opinion.

[Sanctaphrax]

This seems to be either a disingenuous argument or a misunderstanding of "plot device" - "...an object or character in a story whose sole purpose is to advance the plot of the story, or alternatively to overcome some difficulty in the plot."

Regardless of whether it's just there to advance the plot or not, players will sometimes need to be able to interact with it.

Suppose I introduce a random nameless NPC police officer who's just in the story to deliver a message. (He's obviously a plot device.) A player self-Compels an Aspect to get into a fight with him. Now I need to know his initiative and his combat skills if I want to run the fight. (Fortunately, I can make those up quickly and easily.)

Same situation here. Unless you're railroading very effectively, your players will occasionally interact with things you didn't expect them to. And then, you have a choice between stats and handwaving everything. The latter won't always work, though it often it'll be just fine.

So plot devices will need stats from time to time.

PS: By that definition, essentially every NPC is a plot device. And obviously some NPCs should have stats. So why is "plot device" used as a term for statless characters? Because almost nobody uses that definition around here.

[UmbraLux]

Regardless of whether it's just there to advance the plot or not, players will sometimes need to be able to interact with it.

Suppose I introduce a random nameless NPC police officer who's just in the story to deliver a message. (He's obviously a plot device.) A player self-Compels an Aspect to get into a fight with him. Now I need to know his initiative and his combat skills if I want to run the fight. (Fortunately, I can make those up quickly and easily.)

Heh, my answer:  "Your uppercut takes the cop by surprise and knocks him out.  You now have an unconscious cop at your feet and, probably, a bit of trouble in your future.  What are you doing now?"

To me, the point of a compel isn't a random fight, it's the complications that stem from the action.  And, if the fight isn't important, I'm not going to waste a lot of time on it.

Same situation here. Unless you're railroading very effectively, your players will occasionally interact with things you didn't expect them to. And then, you have a choice between stats and handwaving everything. The latter won't always work, though it often it'll be just fine.

Nah...they try something they succeed more often than not.  (They're heroes after all!)  Don't need to put them on tracks to avoid what you call handwaving.  Let them succeed!  The consequences, even of success, are fun. 

So plot devices will need stats from time to time.

PS: By that definition, essentially every NPC is a plot device. And obviously some NPCs should have stats. So why is "plot device" used as a term for statless characters? Because almost nobody uses that definition around here.

Don't think we're using the same definition of "plot device".  An NPC can be an ally, a neutral / scenery, an obstacle, an antagonist, or a plot device.  Though I tend to dislike NPC plot devices - they often feel too contrived.  When it comes down to it, I don't really want an NPC pushing the narrative - rather have the PCs / players doing so.

[Jimmy]

A plot device is a writing tool, distinct and different than a character or NPC. Its something that serves no purpose than to further the plot. You can still interact with a plot device, but those interactions should really only be limited to dealing with parts of it. In the example used by the OP, the ritual itself is the plot device, and the objectives used to defeat it are the parts of the story being interacted with. This might include tracking down a tome used to research a weakness for the ritual, defeating minions of the master antogonist, who is trying to finish or maintain the ritual, breaking down magical defences set up to stop the players getting to the 'core' of the ritual's power source, and then hitting the master antagonist in the rude bits. The ritual can then be shut down by pushing 'The Button' or by using a previously obtained 'Macguffin'.

Another type of plot device.

[Sanctaphrax]

Heh, my answer:  "Your uppercut takes the cop by surprise and knocks him out.  You now have an unconscious cop at your feet and, probably, a bit of trouble in your future.  What are you doing now?"

That can work, but some people like fighting. And if the fight is one they can't realistically win, then it's impolite to handwave the defeat of your players.

Suppose a player attacks Mab. I'm not going to declare him a winner instantly. But defeating him by GM fiat is just not nice. So you need stats.

So handwaves don't always work. They especially don't work if the challenge of defeating the plot device sounds fun. And trying to end a magical time loop sounds like fun to me.

Don't think we're using the same definition of "plot device".  An NPC can be an ally, a neutral / scenery, an obstacle, an antagonist, or a plot device.  Though I tend to dislike NPC plot devices - they often feel too contrived.  When it comes down to it, I don't really want an NPC pushing the narrative - rather have the PCs / players doing so.

I wrote up a response, then deleted it when I realized I didn't actually care. Define the word plot however you choose. Just don't expect me to have the foggiest clue what you're talking about.

PS: Your comment about what Compels are about seems weird to me. Why does it matter what Compels are about to you? Your idiosyncrasies are, so far as I can tell, entirely meaningless to this conversation.

[UmbraLux]

That can work, but some people like fighting. And if the fight is one they can't realistically win, then it's impolite to handwave the defeat of your players.

Suppose a player attacks Mab. I'm not going to declare him a winner instantly. But defeating him by GM fiat is just not nice. So you need stats.

So handwaves don't always work. They especially don't work if the challenge of defeating the plot device sounds fun. And trying to end a magical time loop sounds like fun to me.

Have to disagree - I find that kind of faux battle simply dishonest.  Unless you're giving them a chance to actually win it's just being hit by a locomotive.

PS: Your comment about what Compels are about seems weird to me. Why does it matter what Compels are about to you? Your idiosyncrasies are, so far as I can tell, entirely meaningless to this conversation.

While I realize it doesn't happen often on the internet, knowing a frame of reference promotes understanding.  It's the "Minority Report" premise in small scale.

[GryMor]

Have to disagree - I find that kind of faux battle simply dishonest.  Unless you're giving them a chance to actually win it's just being hit by a locomotive.
While I realize it doesn't happen often on the internet, knowing a frame of reference promotes understanding.  It's the "Minority Report" premise in small scale.

And I have to disagree, no chance of outright victory in the current encounter doesn't make it a faux battle. You still, though your actions, determine the totality of the circumstances of your defeat. Forcing a hand wave removes agency.

[Radecliffe]

Have to disagree - I find that kind of faux battle simply dishonest.  Unless you're giving them a chance to actually win it's just being hit by a locomotive.

The best GM I ever knew would throw no-win scenarios at us once in a while.  It was a matter of knowing when it was a bad idea to pick a fight.  Come to think of it a social conflict system might have served us well in those situations. 

[AstronaughtAndy]

Picking a fight with Mab, especially during the season of winter should be exactly like getting hit with a locomotive. It doesnt end well. If I'm not mistaken WoJ is that it would take the entire White Council to beat her. OW doesnt have stats on alot of the supernatural heavyweights exactly for this reason. Which doesnt mean you couldnt let your player roll something to base their terrible outcome on. Maybe rolling a Legendary ++ attack roll gets you a sweet gig as a hellhound while a Good roll gets you turned into a snowman.

[Sanctaphrax]

Have to disagree - I find that kind of faux battle simply dishonest.  Unless you're giving them a chance to actually win it's just being hit by a locomotive.

I think the other guys covered this pretty well.

While I realize it doesn't happen often on the internet, knowing a frame of reference promotes understanding.  It's the "Minority Report" premise in small scale.

You came here to tell ways and means (and me) that what we're doing is meaningless. Not that you wouldn't use it in your games. So the way you play doesn't matter.