Practical Application of (a specific) Death Curse

[Tedronai]

Beyond Becq's most recent post, which coincides well with my interpretation,

Declarations are too easy by the book.

There are two methods of making Declarations 'by the book'.
1) Spend a FP...  Unless you're rich in FP and poor in invokable aspects, this comes out net neutral.
2) Roll an appropriate skill against a difficulty ultimately set by the GM...  In this case, there really is no measure 'by the book' of how easy or difficult a given Declaration will be.  There are guidelines, and there are suggestions, but there is no definitive answer for a specific prospective truth.

[UmbraLux]

There are two methods of making Declarations 'by the book'.
1) Spend a FP...  Unless you're rich in FP and poor in invokable aspects, this comes out net neutral.
2) Roll an appropriate skill against a difficulty ultimately set by the GM...  In this case, there really is no measure 'by the book' of how easy or difficult a given Declaration will be.  There are guidelines, and there are suggestions, but there is no definitive answer for a specific prospective truth.

It's also a free action which can be repeated (for different aspects) indefinitely.  As for the GM setting difficulties, you're correct - if the GM is willing to be arbitrary he can kill the party at any time...or set difficulties too high to meet.  Not exactly a good solution in my opinion.  :/

Both declaration usage and difficulty setting fall under the "Don't be a d1ck." rule.  But that isn't always applied universally or voluntarily.

[Tedronai]

If your GM not being a 'd1ck' causes problems in your game, I propose that s/he has failed.

[UmbraLux]

Then why raise it as a potential solution?

[Becq]

You don't consider "the circumstances of his death" to be declarations?  Blood seems to allow for lots of useful 'circumstances' by itself.

Which could be counted as "double-dipping", since you're already getting completely free tags on every drop of blood you've shed (ie, consequences).  But I'm just suggesting that interpretation for the consideration of the readers; it's not necessarily clear to me that my interpretation is absolute RAW.

But perhaps you're correct...in that case Death Curses aren't going to be very effective unless the wizard chooses to concede (and die) unreasonably (IMO) early.

Maybe ... maybe not.  It could be argued that Maggie's death curse was nothing more than a long-duration aspect (maneuver) placed on Lord Raith, and endlessly compelled by the GM.  Or perhaps a couple of stacking aspects.  In either case, such a spell wouldn't take all that many shifts to create.  What it would mean (if the interpretation is correct) is that you can't simply vaporize your killer with your death curse -- you have to be more subtle to make it really hurt.

[Tedronai]

Then why raise it as a potential solution?

I think you misunderstand.
Taking the necessary steps to avoid problems within the game IS follows the rule of 'don't be a d1ck'.
If those steps include increasing the difficulties of Declarations because they have become (or have been realized to be) 'too easy' relative to other methods of achieving similar results, then doing so follows the rule of 'don't be a d1ck'.

The GM doesn't even have to resort to 'rule 0' to address this problem.  Those difficulties are explicitly within the GM's discretion.  As is even the power to 'veto' a Declaration, which is explicitly recommended to be used under some circumstances.

[UmbraLux]

Which could be counted as "double-dipping", since you're already getting completely free tags on every drop of blood you've shed (ie, consequences). 

Hmm, I think the Opened Artery is the consequence.  The blood is just scenery...and scenery is temporary aspect fodder.  You still have to set the declaration up also, probably by rolling something observation related in this case.

But I'm just suggesting that interpretation for the consideration of the readers; it's not necessarily clear to me that my interpretation is absolute RAW.Maybe ... maybe not.  It could be argued that Maggie's death curse was nothing more than a long-duration aspect (maneuver) placed on Lord Raith, and endlessly compelled by the GM.  Or perhaps a couple of stacking aspects.  In either case, such a spell wouldn't take all that many shifts to create.  What it would mean (if the interpretation is correct) is that you can't simply vaporize your killer with your death curse -- you have to be more subtle to make it really hurt.

Don't know about Maggie's curse...between it and Lara the result was a take out.  Who knows which happened when or how much help Lara may have had from the curse? 

But even long duration aspects aren't cheap.  See the example I posted here.  It took 22 shifts total.  Drop 6 shifts (for three declarations) off the duration and it only lasts a few weeks.  Probably not fun but certainly not the threat Harry makes death curses out to be.

I think you misunderstand.
Taking the necessary steps to avoid problems within the game IS follows the rule of 'don't be a d1ck'.
If those steps include increasing the difficulties of Declarations because they have become (or have been realized to be) 'too easy' relative to other methods of achieving similar results, then doing so follows the rule of 'don't be a d1ck'.

I understand.  I simply classify taking arbitrary action as being a d1ck.  Unless you're a judge or a mathematician.

It's even worse since thaumaturgy explicitly uses declarations (Many declarations!) as a primary power source.  So the GM is taking the position of "it's only ok when I agree with the results".  Yeah...fail.

To reiterate previous comments, this is why my group agreed to put soft caps on declarations.  That way you know when they're going to get harder and why.  No need to be arbitrary.

The GM doesn't even have to resort to 'rule 0' to address this problem.  Those difficulties are explicitly within the GM's discretion.  As is even the power to 'veto' a Declaration, which is explicitly recommended to be used under some circumstances.

Not sure rule 0 even exists in FATE but doesn't matter - I didn't mention anything having to do with it.   

[Tedronai]

I understand.  I simply classify taking arbitrary action as being a d1ck.  Unless you're a judge or a mathematician.

It would seem arbitrary action on the part of the GM is viewed as a problem from your perspective.  The GM working to avoid solve that problem, then, is part of the same 'don't be a d1ck' rule that lead to seeking a solution to 'too easy' declarations.

To reiterate previous comments, this is why my group agreed to put soft caps on declarations.  That way you know when they're going to get harder and why.  No need to be arbitrary.

I'm glad to see that you seem to have found a solution.

Not sure rule 0 even exists in FATE but doesn't matter - I didn't mention anything having to do with it.   

Just heading off what I viewed as a likely path for further argument.  The principle of 'rule 0' gets brought up a lot in discussions like this one.  In fact, I'm pretty sure it WAS referenced in this thread shortly before my post, if only obliquely.

if the GM is willing to be arbitrary he can kill the party at any time...

Yep, sounds like an application of 'what the GM says, goes'.

[UmbraLux]

It would seem arbitrary action on the part of the GM is viewed as a problem from your perspective.  The GM working to avoid solve that problem, then, is part of the same 'don't be a d1ck' rule that lead to seeking a solution to 'too easy' declarations.

Not really parsing what you're saying here.  Doesn't matter though...I'm out for the night.

Yep, sounds like an application of 'what the GM says, goes'.

Err, no.  Not at all.  Unless you call stating NPCs rule 0 - that's how the GM kills characters - encounters.

[Tedronai]

Not really parsing what you're saying here.  Doesn't matter though...I'm out for the night.

If Declarations are viewed as problematically 'too easy', and arbitrary judgment calls on the behalf of the GM are themselves considered to be a problem (arbitrary action being deemed 'd1ck-ish'), then those arbitrary judgment calls are not a viable solution to the original problem.
Implementing a 'soft cap' houserule, on the other hand, if accepted by the table as solving the problem and as not being the source of a problem in its own right, WOULD be a viable solution.

Err, no.  Not at all.  Unless you call stating NPCs rule 0 - that's how the GM kills characters - encounters.

(exaggerated for emphasis)
Player of recently dead PC:  'So, what were the stats on that mortal beat cop who just one-shotted me?'
GM: 'Roughly Legendary in anything physical, with stats elsewhere varying from Good to Superb, why?'
Player: 'Just wanted to know why it is that a mortal beat cop could compete in the Nevernever Olympics with a reasonable expectation of making it to the finals...'
GM: 'Because I said so, and I'm the GM, and what the GM says, goes.'
Player: 'And so do his players.'


Yes, statting NPCs with the express intent of killing the PCs is an exercise of Rule 0.
All arbitrary decision making powers placed in the hands of the GM are an exercise of the principle of Rule 0.

[UmbraLux]

Yes, statting NPCs with the express intent of killing the PCs is an exercise of Rule 0.
All arbitrary decision making powers placed in the hands of the GM are an exercise of the principle of Rule 0.

I think your definition of rule 0 is wider than mine.  However, it sounds like you're agreeing with me.  Arbitrary or capricious decisions are bad - whether setting difficulties or NPC power levels.

[Tedronai]

Well, I don't see all arbitrary decisions as (inherently) bad, but I do see all things that create division within a gaming group as bad for that gaming group, which means that all arbitrary decisions ARE be bad for a given gaming group that includes members that see them that way with sufficient vehemence.