Extremely High Complexity Rituals

[Mr. Death]

In your game, could I have a PC walk into a daycare and open up with automatic weapon while proclaiming his name and address - and specifying that any takeouts my PC does are fatal ones, without repercussions? Or could I say that when the police show up in overwhelming numbers "Dude, wtf? Why are you railroading me here? Anymore than two cops is overkill."?

Richard

That isn't at all what he's saying, Richard. Not even close to what he's saying.

What he's saying is that yes, those consequences happen, but they're not "Bam, you lose, don't bother rolling" consequences. They're consequences that the players have to work against.

[Sanctaphrax]

And then what?

In this particular example, the PC would get chewed out by a military associate of hers. If she was not appropriately conciliatory, this could lead to violence of a sneaky assassin-based variety.

Which would be a pretty fun story, I think.

There'd be other consequences too, but that one comes to mind first.

Take out hundreds of people in front of the house, behind the house, on both sides of the house, down the street from the house, an in the mobile command centre? With one spell?

I'd love to see the math on that one.

18 accuracy attack evocation, using 18 shifts of power to split it up over 9 zones at weapon rating 0. If the cops are not spread out enough, they're in trouble.

So the way that they are distributed is important.

So they need actual mechanics.

If you really need a stat in the middle of an encounter, make it up.

Either way, you're assigning stats. My point is that you have to do that one way or another.

Once they've made that decision, then why call for a roll? See page 309 for why that roll wouldn't matter.  The game has already switched to "terrorists on the run" or "America's Most Wanted" so what's the interesting outcomes if they fail or succeed?

If they fail, the game shifts to "PCs on trial".

If they succeed, it goes the way you suggest.

Both success and failure ought to be interesting, so rolling is worthwhile. (That being said, things would not go the way described here with the PC I'm thinking of. Hiding from the cops would be too easy for her for it to make a good story on its own. But that's beside the point.)

One mook cop with a pistol ~= 5 shift attack.  One hundred mook cops = 5 shift attack +198 shifts from tagging 99 supporting fire aspects.  Of course I'm making the assumption here that the NPC cops get to use the same (in my opinion abusive, but opinions vary) aspect proliferation that the PCs use.

I don't let PCs use this sort of thing and I wouldn't let cops do it either. And that's entirely legal by the RAW, since GMs have authority over maneuver difficulty and aspect use.

[Tedronai]

Actually, it's a plot device borrowed from a novel.  During the series there were enough "the cop friend fixes things" and there was a long term antagonist NPC cop.  Eventually things reached the point where it would not be plausible for the police not to take action.

Harry CHOSE to let those cops break down his door.  All he had to do to stop them was NOT take down his wards.  That's not 'plot device', that's just pure, simple, common Compel.

And when the police take action, they don't go for balanced encounters.  They use overwhelming force in the hopes that the bad guy will be smart enough not to try to shoot them.

They use overwhelming force as they understand it.  Which simply doesn't stack up to the kind of thing that a well-built and well-played wizard can dish out relatively casually.

So the world should never respond to the PCs' actions in a plausible way?

It is quite plausible that the police force would raid the PCs' known haunts in substantial numbers with what they understand to be relatively overwhelming force.  It is not reasonable that by doing so they magically deny the PCs' their supernatural ability to respond to comparatively petty threats.

Spend game after game getting a cop friend to "fix" things for your PC while antagonizing the authorities, make (and leave unresolved) an enemy in Internal Affairs, make the interaction a major theme of the game - and nothing happens to your PC - that's removing consequences from the game.

What happens to your PC is that the police raid your known residence.  What happens when the police raid your known residence should not be 'rocks will fall, you cannot possibly win no matter how creative or well-prepared you happen to be'.

In your game, could I have a PC walk into a daycare and open up with automatic weapon while proclaiming his name and address - and specifying that any takeouts my PC does are fatal ones

Yes

, without repercussions?

No

Or could I say that when the police show up in overwhelming numbers "Dude, wtf? Why are you railroading me here? Anymore than two cops is overkill."?

Richard

No.

But you could say, 'I'm entirely willing to let those cops throw themselves into the meat grinder of my wards, please do continue' and then sit back and watch the fireworks.

Given that the police force described can fairly easily generate a several hundred shift collective attack^*, I wonder what a 'decently strong ward' constitutes...?


^*One mook cop with a pistol ~= 5 shift attack.  One hundred mook cops = 5 shift attack +198 shifts from tagging 99 supporting fire aspects.  Of course I'm making the assumption here that the NPC cops get to use the same (in my opinion abusive, but opinions vary) aspect proliferation that the PCs use.

That use of aspects certainly wouldn't pass a 'reasonableness test' from any table I sat at.

[Richard_Chilton]

What he's saying is that yes, those consequences happen, but they're not "Bam, you lose, don't bother rolling" consequences. They're consequences that the players have to work against.

Looking back at the example, I listed ways that the PCs could react to the plot device.  I'm sure I missed a few, the list was:
Do they run, go underground, hide out, veil and watch the operation, use this as a distraction to hit another target, have sniper positioned to take out officer Rat Face (long standing NPC who's behind the raid), or do they do something else?

In short, there was nothing "you lose" in that example.  There was a "this is happen" a plot device bit, but the results of that plot device were up in the air.


If the PCs' actions have led to the FBI, ATF, state police, SWAT, Tactical Squad, etc showing up, then there is a "you can't win this fight" situation - one that the PCs have to work around in a non-combative way.  Or there is a total disconnect between how the police respond to things and what happens in your game.

18 accuracy attack evocation, using 18 shifts of power to split it up over 9 zones at weapon rating 0. If the cops are not spread out enough, they're in trouble.

There are no win situations in life.  The cops make a habit out making any planned arrest a no win situation for the other side.  30 - 40 cops will show up to arrest one drug dealer - and shoot his house full of holes if they feel they have a reason to.

You seem to be thinking in terms of a balanced (balanced to be hard, but still balanced) encounter.  What happened in Changes (the inspiration for my example) wasn't a balanced encounter.  It was overwhelming force.  It was basically a plot device used to get Murphy and Harry together for the coming fight scene.


At its heart, this discussion is a conflict of philosophies.  One side feels "If you remove the possibility of no win situations from your game, you are doing a disservice to your players" while the other side feels that there always has to be an out.


Why do I feel that no wins are needed? Because without them there is little to struggle against.  Everything comes down "If I make this roll I'll win" situations, which means the drama comes from the dice rolls, not the story.

I'll draw an example from a book - if the Darkhallow had happened, the result would be a no win situation for every PC in Chicago.  Thus the drama comes from trying to stop the event.  Knowing that if your PCs fail to stop it, then it could be the end of the game, everyone makes a new PC, we set the next game in an alternative timeline where the White Council still exists - that adds drama to the PCs' choices.

The plot device ritual from Changes was similar.   When that ritual went off, no force in the DV could protect anyone it targeted.  None.  Making it a "prevent that or die" situation.

Summer Knight had two plot devices that were linked.  "Fail to stop the Queens from going ahead to head" and the world would be destroyed.  "Fail to complete the challenge from the White Council" and Harry would be handed over to the Red Court.

If those stakes weren't on the table, would the challenge have been as important?

Richard

[Richard_Chilton]

Harry CHOSE to let those cops break down his door.  All he had to do to stop them was NOT take down his wards.  That's not 'plot device', that's just pure, simple, common Compel.

But his choices were limited based on his previous actions.  He had already specified that the wards would use lethal force on zombies, RCV, etc trying to break through the door.  At that point his choice was "kill a lot of cops or take down the wards".

I don't see a compel there - I see a choice.

They use overwhelming force as they understand it.  Which simply doesn't stack up to the kind of thing that a well-built and well-played wizard can dish out relatively casually.

Using enough force to take out a terrorist, mad bomber, etc is up there.  Any "officer down" would have increased the force, even if the officer was taken down in a non-lethal way.

The first sign of resistance and they would have been shooting to killing.

It is quite plausible that the police force would raid the PCs' known haunts in substantial numbers with what they understand to be relatively overwhelming force.  It is not reasonable that by doing so they magically deny the PCs' their supernatural ability to respond to comparatively petty threats.

Hundreds of cops is a petty threat?

What happens to your PC is that the police raid your known residence.  What happens when the police raid your known residence should not be 'rocks will fall, you cannot possibly win no matter how creative or well-prepared you happen to be'.

Look back to the example I typed up.  You should see how it doesn't say "and the PCs automatically go to jail" but lists alternatives to entering a fight that they cannot win.

But you could say, 'I'm entirely willing to let those cops throw themselves into the meat grinder of my wards, please do continue' and then sit back and watch the fireworks.

How many levels of Lawbreaker would that bring?

And looking at it logically: once the first wave died, the second wave wouldn't go forward.  That's when the tactical weapons would be used.  If they had to level your house, they would.

That use of aspects certainly wouldn't pass a 'reasonableness test' from any table I sat at.

But one man taking on hundreds and winning - that passes your reasonableness test?

There's a reason why police don't send officers arrest suspects one on one - it's the advantage that numbers give you.  Taking away those real world type responses is shield your PCs from the fallout of their actions.

Richard

[Sanctaphrax]

There are no win situations in life.  The cops make a habit out making any planned arrest a no win situation for the other side.  30 - 40 cops will show up to arrest one drug dealer - and shoot his house full of holes if they feel they have a reason to.

You seem to be thinking in terms of a balanced (balanced to be hard, but still balanced) encounter.  What happened in Changes (the inspiration for my example) wasn't a balanced encounter.  It was overwhelming force.  It was basically a plot device used to get Murphy and Harry together for the coming fight scene.

My point is, what you suggested is not overwhelming force for everyone.

200 cops is a lot, but depending on how they're arranged they might get squished.

At its heart, this discussion is a conflict of philosophies.  One side feels "If you remove the possibility of no win situations from your game, you are doing a disservice to your players" while the other side feels that there always has to be an out.

I'm not on either of those sides.

I'm okay with no-win situations, but I don't mind playing without them.

And I understand that even a no-win situation needs numbers if you intend to use the rules for it.

PS: The ability of wizards to kill hundreds with a single spell really isn't in question. It happens in the novels, and the mechanics support it.

[Becq]

I don't let PCs use this sort of thing and I wouldn't let cops do it either. And that's entirely legal by the RAW, since GMs have authority over maneuver difficulty and aspect use.

As long as you apply that same authority to limit to the preparation stage of thaumaturgy, then great!  And this should also mean that you never have the sort of 400-shift "extremely high complexity rituals" that formed the premise of this thread.

Allowing neither side to abuse aspect proliferation is good.  Allowing both to use it ... well, that's "fair", but probably not very fun for anyone.  Allowing one side to use it but not the other results in situations where a "decent" ward can defeat an army.

[Richard_Chilton]

I'm okay with no-win situations, but I don't mind playing without them.

And I understand that even a no-win situation needs numbers if you intend to use the rules for it.

PS: The ability of wizards to kill hundreds with a single spell really isn't in question. It happens in the novels, and the mechanics support it.

The rules explicitly refers to plot devices.  For example, how of a spell can Mab cast? Plot device.  Since plot devices are part of the rules it follows that they do not need to be further defined.

Killing hundreds of mortals (like cops) is possible - if you are the Blackstaff.  Otherwise you are looking negative refresh due to lawbreaker.

Richard

[Sanctaphrax]

As long as you apply that same authority to limit to the preparation stage of thaumaturgy, then great!  And this should also mean that you never have the sort of 400-shift "extremely high complexity rituals" that formed the premise of this thread.

Unfortunately, human sacrifice still works. And there are other issues with thaumaturgy.

Worth mentioning that the premise of the thread was working out whether such rituals were actually 400 shifts or not. The thread has drifted.

Allowing neither side to abuse aspect proliferation is good.  Allowing both to use it ... well, that's "fair", but probably not very fun for anyone.  Allowing one side to use it but not the other results in situations where a "decent" ward can defeat an army.

For what it's worth, the novels contain an instance where a ward stops an army cold. The wizards who cast that ward were stronger than most PCs, of course, but the army was also a lot stronger than the one in question here.

The rules explicitly refers to plot devices.

And yet, they suggest numbers for Mab. Because you might need them.

Killing hundreds of mortals (like cops) is possible - if you are the Blackstaff.  Otherwise you are looking negative refresh due to lawbreaker.

Killing's not necessary. Remember how the take-out rules work. Sleep spells work, and breaking everyone's arms and legs seems fair too.

On the other hand, Lawbreaker's fine too.

[Robin Cary]

/steps out of  the lurking clouds

There's also the fact  that killing that many mortals in one single moment. Would bring in either the warden's if your unlucky, Or possibly the Blackstaff and or Gatekeeper if your incredibly  unlucky. Wizards can kill allot of people sure, but most of them don't because they like having their heads attached to their shoulders. Death  by Warden sword would be very unpleasant would it not?

Killing's not necessary of course, but in  that example, would there be time for less leathal means to bring allot of cops down and not break any laws of the magic kind?

I myself find myself on the opinion that a well done  plot device, one that is a natural cause of events or  so well done you can't even tell it's a plot device at first glance, are  incredibly useful of making a fun story and session. Same for No-win Situations, it's a good way to show realism when done well.

Of course a badly done plot device can simply be well boring and the GM trying to rail road. A Badly done no-win Situation is simply cheap, annoying and a quick way to make a Session  crash and burn.

[Sanctaphrax]

There's also the fact  that killing that many mortals in one single moment. Would bring in either the warden's if your unlucky, Or possibly the Blackstaff and or Gatekeeper if your incredibly  unlucky.

Sounds like fun.

I like it when my players get themselves into trouble.

[Robin Cary]

Sounds like fun.

I like it when my players get themselves into trouble.

Sound exactly  like  our GM, We're still trying to sort the mess after  Two PC's accidentally caused a jail break.. in a Never Never prison.. A very dangerous monster got loose.


..But I digress. Getting into trouble is fun, and  no-win situations can cause allot of trouble and thus fun when done well.

[Tedronai]

But his choices were limited based on his previous actions.  He had already specified that the wards would use lethal force on zombies, RCV, etc trying to break through the door.  At that point his choice was "kill a lot of cops or take down the wards".

I don't see a compel there - I see a choice.

The cops coming to break down Harry's door is the (presumably accepted) compel.  Harry taking down his wards is (part of) his response to that compel.
Depending on his aspects at the time, he might also have had a compel further limiting his options away from using lethal force (ie. leaving the wards in place), but that's more difficult to tell.

Hundreds of cops is a petty threat?

Hundreds of mortal cops, who know virtually nothing, even collectively, about the supernatural world, splattering themselves like bugs on the windshield of your (easily) twenty-odd-shift (and still reasonably substantially higher) ward is a relatively petty threat, yes.
The police force has no meaningful capacity to predict or respond in a setting-consistent manner to a house that's effectively protected by a seemingly impenetrable force field of death, destruction, and magic.

Look back to the example I typed up.  You should see how it doesn't say "and the PCs automatically go to jail" but lists alternatives to entering a fight that they cannot win.

But they CAN win, if they have enough preparation and are willing to make that choice.  That's what I'm contesting.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't use no-win scenarios on occasion (though I think that they're generally done poorly and there are many GMs who should avoid them on principle because they're simply incapable of handling them appropriately), I'm saying that this isn't one.

How many levels of Lawbreaker would that bring?

Probably 3.  Because that's where Lawbreaker caps per law.
It could be more if you're killing the horde of mooks in a way that breaks multiple laws simultaneously, but that'd be kind of silly.

And looking at it logically: once the first wave died, the second wave wouldn't go forward.  That's when the tactical weapons would be used.  If they had to level your house, they would.

And in the time it takes them to call in the national guard, and/or get the authorization for the use of that level of force in the middle of a densely populated area (most militaries from first-world countries tend to have some reluctance to launch an air strike on their own cities), you've won the encounter.

But one man taking on hundreds and winning - that passes your reasonableness test?

When that one man can personally, casually toss out effects on par with military-grade heavy weapons, and has established in the story to date that they've put significant effort into the fortification of their place of residence such that it packs even more punch than that and can continue to deliver it over a prolonged period?
Yes.
Would you allow a Loup-Garou decimating a mob of hundreds of villagers armed with torches and pitch-forks to pass a reasonableness test?  Or would you allow a 'cumulative attack' by those villagers using tags from 'moral support' maneuvers to GM-fiat-away that pesky Physical Immunity? (an exaggerated comparison, but not one that I feel overly so; the villagers individually have 0 chance to meaningfully so much as slow the Loup-Garou / the mook cops individually have 0 plausible chance to so much as dent the wards)

There's a reason why police don't send officers arrest suspects one on one - it's the advantage that numbers give you.  Taking away those real world type responses is shield your PCs from the fallout of their actions.

Richard

Who's suggesting taking away the possibility of mortal police forces responding in 'overwhelming' numbers?  I'm just saying that mundane understandings of what 'overwhelming numbers' actually are will likely lead to a mass slaughter if the PCs choose to go that route, and that that choice is a valid one and should not be railroaded out of their grasp by some misguided GM declaration that a certain number of npc mooks somehow magically congeals into a 'plot device' that cannot be contended with even when the rules that would otherwise govern the encounter would seem to say that doing so is pathetically simple.

[Richard_Chilton]

Killing's not necessary. Remember how the take-out rules work. Sleep spells work, and breaking everyone's arms and legs seems fair too.

I was replying to your

PS: The ability of wizards to kill hundreds with a single spell really isn't in question. It happens in the novels, and the mechanics support it."

- which is why I continued on the killing theme.  If you didn't want to talk about killing, then why raise the subject?

I'm not saying that you shouldn't use no-win scenarios on occasion (though I think that they're generally done poorly and there are many GMs who should avoid them on principle because they're simply incapable of handling them appropriately), I'm saying that this isn't one.

Rather than to debate this example, why not offer an example of your own? What do you see as a no-win situation?

Probably 3.  Because that's where Lawbreaker caps per law.

Lawbreaker can (and in some cases should) be taken more than 3 times.  After you cap the bonus at +2:
"Every three times that you break this law past that point, another (different) aspect must be changed, though the refresh cost and spellcasting bonus do not further increase."

So again, how many times would Lawbreaker be taken for slaughtering hundreds of cops with a ward? Enough to change all seven of the PC's aspects?

when the rules that would otherwise govern the encounter would seem to say that doing so is pathetically simple.

It's pathetically simple to kill hundreds of cops? Sorry, I don't accept that as a blanket statement.

Richard

[Becq]

So again, how many times would Lawbreaker be taken for slaughtering hundreds of cops with a ward? Enough to change all seven of the PC's aspects?

My preferred answer: many times over.  200 cops would be 66 alterations to the wizard's aspects, meaning about 9 changes to each aspect -- resulting in every aspect being a variation on the theme of "I'm a Sith Lord!!1!".

However, I don't think this is actually how the mechanics work.  The RAW refers to breaking the Law "on three or more occasions" and "for every three occasions a Law is broken" (my emphasis, YS233-234).  So a single spell that kills 10 million people would be one occasion of breaking the Law, and therefore one Lawbreaker stunt (and a recommended but not mandatory aspect change).

I can certainly see room for house rules to alter this, of course.