Veils

[Taran]

I'd like to point out that the Molly/Gruff example doesn't make a case for either side.  Both sides have made reasonable and valid arguments of how Molly survived.  You can go on and on about how one interpretation is more valid than another, but it just won't go anywhere.  How do you know that Molly did or didn't spend FP's?  Or whether the snow hindered their alertness or their attack or either?  There's no proof, just conversation.

I'll try to demonstrate my point with another analogy.

Draw a 6inch target on a 10ftX10ft wall.  Then cover it with a 10ftX10ft sheet.

I'm claiming that if you throw darts at the wall, you can hit the target.  It may be difficult, but POSSIBLE.
You are claiming that you can't.  It's impossible to hit the target until you PERCEIVE the target.  In fact, people get so demoralized by the sheet, that they don't even try to throw darts.  Instead, they use fans and back-lighting hoping to get some kind of clue as to where the target is before they even try.

[UmbraLux]

Let's look at the facts here:
A veil has special rules (the half-strength block against the veiler)
A veil is explicitly described as a special block that does not block damage
A veil is described as hiding from detection whatever's under it--i.e., if you don't break the block strength, you don't detect whatever it's hiding
A veil and how it works is described as different, special, alternative form of defense distinct from a shield block.

I'll have to check when I have the books available but it looks to me like you're reading more into what the book says than what is in the text.  For example, I don't remember it saying veils do not block damage.  It does state they block perception.  It would be a significant jump to go to that's all it can block...I'll look when I have the book available.

[Mr. Death]

I'd like to point out that the Molly/Gruff example doesn't make a case for either side.  Both sides have made reasonable and valid arguments of how Molly survived.  You can go on and on about how one interpretation is more valid than another, but it just won't go anywhere.  How do you know that Molly did or didn't spend FP's?  How do you know that she didn't overcast the spell to make it more powerful?  There's no proof, just conversation.

My point vis a vis Molly is that her disappearing--and remaining totally unharmed--under a veil is presented as something she does regularly with considerable aptitude, not something she does only when she really has to, or the situation justifies it, or other things that are, mechanically, represented by using a fate point.

I'll try to demonstrate my point with another analogy.

Draw a 6inch target on a 10ftX10ft wall.  Then cover it with a 10ftX10ft sheet.

I'm claiming that if you throw darts at the wall, you can hit the target.  It may be difficult, but POSSIBLE.
You are claiming that you can't.  It's impossible to hit the target until you PERCEIVE the target.  In fact, people get so demoralized by the sheet, that they don't even try to throw darts.  Instead, they use fans and back-lighting hoping to get some kind of clue as to where the target is before they even try.

I'd amend that to say someone else draws the target, and the sheet is up before you get any idea of where on the wall the target is.

It's possible, yes. But the Fate system isn't made to model absolute probability--if it was, there would be a much larger range than an 8-point scale. Technically possible is immaterial--it's sufficiently improbable to hit something while firing blind that, in the Fate system, it's simply not going to happen outside of extraordinary circumstances, represented by a compel of some kind.

"Difficult" would be trying to hit a moving target that's trying to evade you. Trying to hit a moving target that's trying to evade you and which you cannot see or hear or otherwise perceive beyond "Well, I think maybe it's somewhere in that direction" is so many more degrees of difficulty that if it's not impossible, it's close enough as makes no difference for practical applications.

When I say that Molly can't be targeted, I do not mean that it is utterly impossible under any circumstances to do anything to her. I have said, several times, that there are numerous ways to bypass the veil entirely, and I am getting very tired of you repeatedly ignoring that to try and paint my argument falsely.

Seriously, do I have to put it in giant, red, bold letters? Because I keep repeating myself, and either you're not getting it, or you're deliberately ignoring it.

Plus, you're getting the narrative and the mechanics mixed up again: An action failing doesn't mean "they get so demoralized they don't even try" (and that characterization of my argument is, frankly, utterly ridiculous and so far off base I'm getting angry); it means that any action depending on their perceiving the target (and failing to beat the Veil with some kind of perception roll means exactly that) is going to fail. This could be represented in the flavor any number of ways, including them swinging and missing by default, picking a different target, or trying something else.

I'll have to check when I have the books available but it looks to me like you're reading more into what the book says than what is in the text.  For example, I don't remember it saying veils do not block damage.  It does state they block perception.  It would be a significant jump to go to that's all it can block...I'll look when I have the book available.

I'm looking directly at the book for those points, and have cited the pages in YS that make those points before:

Edit: One last thing. The section on evocation blocks (YS252) outright says that veils are not blocks against damage. The  section on Spirit as an element (YS255) says a veil's strength in particular "serves as the difficulty for using skills or other magic to detect anything that’s concealed by the veil" (Emphasis mine). Not the difficulty of hitting something, or a block against causing damage like you've been suggesting, but a block against being detected at all--so if the veil isn't surpassed, whoever's looking doesn't discern your presence. The book refers to veils as an alternative approach to defense, and even a "special type" of block. The book is, in fact, pretty clear that a veil is a different way to prevent getting hit from a usual shield-type spell.

My interpretation of the rules, which we see in action in post 98, allows a 3 shift veil to be an effective means of defending yourself.

By introducing modifiers and partial successes that, as I said, are not meant to be used in direct character-to-character conflict.

Second, it is special in the same way a grapple is, while you can beat the block with any action, and thus perform that action, only actions that make sense will actually break it. In this case you can attack someone under a veil, but it will not break the block unless it is an action that is described such that it would.

Where in the books does it say veils act anything like grapples?

Third, unlike shields, a veil is special because it provides all sorts of fodder for declarations to boost you defense (alternately increase the difficulty of an attack). When used this way, even a 1 shift veil that the opponent does not pierce is an effective defensive tool, because it allows you to make 4+ shifts worth of declarations every time you are attacked (how long they will fail to pierce a 1 shift veil is another matter).

In this system, anything provides fodder for declarations if you'll allow it. This whole thing is, in short, not the way magic blocks are supposed to work. A block is meant to be the block strength, not about having to make declarations.

I argue that my interpretation of the rules do in fact make veils very special. I also like the fact that my interpretation  still allows them to function like a normal block (or at least like a defensive version of a grapple), in situations where that makes sense narratively. I do not like that your version makes veils completely different form anything else in the game, and does not in fact make a 3 shift veil effective against a reasonable opponent, and has variable power based solely on the whims of the GM.

Based solely on the whims of the GM? No. Not at all, and you're misrepresenting my interpretation so drastically at this point it's frankly insulting.

As I have pointed out, the game book itself says that Veils are special and work differently than other blocks. This is not my interpretation, this is exactly what it says in the book. I've cited the bloody page number at least four times by now.

I'm putting stat against stat--3 shift veil vs. 1-rank Alertness. That is based on the player action and the book. Your method is about partial successes (set and decided by the GM) and situational modifiers (again, set and decided by the GM), and you say that my method is the one "based solely on the whims of the GM"?

I have, in fact, demonstrated exactly how a 3-shift veil--stat for stat, raw number against raw number--is an effective defense. And that is not a result of "dumbing down" the opposition, or of playing favorites, but simple number-against-number calculation.

[Centarion]

I'm putting stat against stat--3 shift veil vs. 1-rank Alertness. That is based on the player action and the book. Your method is about partial successes (set and decided by the GM) and situational modifiers (again, set and decided by the GM), and you say that my method is the one "based solely on the whims of the GM"?

First off, my interpretation has nothing to do with situational modifiers. I thought that would be an easier way to describe what I was going for, but it just caused you to say I was violating the spirit of the game. Any situational modifier can easily be modeled as a declaration with a tag for +2.

"Partial successes" are not, as it turns out, arbitrarily decided solely on the whims of the GM. The DFRPG is a collaborative game, when the player thinks he should be entitled to a "partial success" he should ask the GM about that. Note that it is not actually a partial success, it is a success, that only barely beats the difficulty, and thus only garners a bit of information, such as a general direction or area, as opposed to a success that actually beats the veil, and gets an exact position.

I have, in fact, demonstrated exactly how a 3-shift veil--stat for stat, raw number against raw number--is an effective defense. And that is not a result of "dumbing down" the opposition, or of playing favorites, but simple number-against-number calculation

The GM is letting Molly's player get away with a trick and play support for the main target of the attack. Molly and Harry are the players; the Gruffs are nameless first-level goons. This makes a big difference. High level enemies? Sure, they can and should make those assessments to make Molly's life difficult (and, indeed, by Changes Molly likely has a few more ranks in Conviction to throw at the Ick). And a player should be able to make those declarations against an NPC in a veil. But the Gruffs? They're not. They're a low-level mob in the beginning of the story, meaning the GM isn't going into kill mode with them.

It is clearly not a number vs. number calculation. You have clearly stated that in order for your method to make a 3 shift veil effective, the enemy has to be a "low-level mob" that the GM chooses not to play optimally. Not only does he have to not play optimally, he has to purposefully disregard sections of rules that say they are entitled to declarations and tags. It is also pretty clear from your statement that you see the GM as playing favorites. "Molly and Harry are the players; the Gruffs are nameless first-level goons," therefore I let Molly win/escape mostly unscathed, even though the Gruffs could easily have inflicted serious damage to Molly. That is textbook playing favorites.

In this system, anything provides fodder for declarations if you'll allow it. This whole thing is, in short, not the way magic blocks are supposed to work. A block is meant to be the block strength, not about having to make declarations.

That is true, but how willing the GM is to allow something is based on how much sense it makes, and with a veil, these declarations make a lot of sense. Further, the block strength is the block strength, the declarations are gravy. I don't know when you decided that a 3 shift block should defend you from a powerful fae with no extra narrative work work, but I do not think that is the case (the fact that the 3 shift block worked for Molly clearly means she put in that extra narrative work).

The book does not say veils are like grapples. But I like when the rules fit together, and are not disjointed. So I like that under my interpretation the veil is like a defensive version of a grapple.

No. Not at all, and you're misrepresenting my interpretation so drastically at this point it's frankly insulting.

As I quoted above I feel I am representing your point accurately. You yourself said words to the effect of "The GM should not use all of the options at his disposal, because the Gruffs are low level mobs." If he does use all his options, your system fails to model what you said it does. Therefore your system's success is contingent upon the whims of the GM.

On the other hand, I feel you have been misunderstanding/misrepresenting my points for at least 4 pages now (see the first response in this post for an example).

[Mr. Death]

First off, my interpretation has nothing to do with situational modifiers. I thought that would be an easier way to describe what I was going for, but it just caused you to say I was violating the spirit of the game. Any situational modifier can easily be modeled as a declaration with a tag for +2.

"Partial successes" are not, as it turns out, arbitrarily decided solely on the whims of the GM. The DFRPG is a collaborative game, when the player thinks he should be entitled to a "partial success" he should ask the GM about that. Note that it is not actually a partial success, it is a success, that only barely beats the difficulty, and thus only garners a bit of information, such as a general direction or area, as opposed to a success that actually beats the veil, and gets an exact position.

An Alertness roll of 1 is not a success "that only barely beats the difficulty," it is a failure. It is the GM's decision, in this case, that a 2-shift failure to beat the roll still allows the Gruff to attack, in your interpretation. After failing to beat the veil's block, you give the Gruff an action that should not have a chance of succeeding at all without him beating the veil's block.

It is clearly not a number vs. number calculation. You have clearly stated that in order for your method to make a 3 shift veil effective, the enemy has to be a "low-level mob" that the GM chooses not to play optimally.

Nope. That's not what I have stated at all. I have said that a 3-shift veil is effective, and that a low-level mob is not going to be doing a mess of declarations, in response to your apparent belief that any character is entitled to such a declaration, and that any character is entitled to the chance of success even in a situation where said chance makes no sense.

Not only does he have to not play optimally, he has to purposefully disregard sections of rules that say they are entitled to declarations and tags.

Declarations and tags are, as I said before, optional. Nobody is "entitled" to any of them. There is nothing in the rules that says the GM has to have every enemy get declarations about anything.

It is also pretty clear from your statement that you see the GM as playing favorites. "Molly and Harry are the players; the Gruffs are nameless first-level goons,"

No, that's a statement of fact, and about scaling difficulty. What the heck gave you the idea that this game is about creating a fair and balanced contest that both sides of a conflict have an equal chance of winning?

Again, do you give your first-level goons the full range of consequences? Do your PCs have to cause a minor elf a mild, moderate, severe, and extreme consequence before they take them out? By your logic, doing anything less is "playing favorites" and deciding arbitrarily to "not play optimally".

therefore I let Molly win/escape mostly unscathed, even though the Gruffs could easily have inflicted serious damage to Molly.

Yes, they could have inflicted serious damage.

If.
They.
Could.
Find.
Her.

Not beating the veil's block means they cannot find her. Because Molly has taken a deliberate step to block them from doing so.

It doesn't matter if she threw something. It doesn't matter if she walked up and kicked the Gruff between the danglies.

If the Gruff doesn't make his Alertness roll to beat the veil's strength, that means he does not find her. That is the entire point and purpose of the veil, and the veil's strength is the difficulty by which you judge if the Gruff finds her or not. If he doesn't find her, if his only clue is "she's somewhere in that general direction in snowball-throwing range," then no, wildly swinging his fists is not going to be a viable method of targeting and attacking her.

Let's crunch some numbers.

With your method, a Gruff that doesn't beat the 3-shift veil (and thus does not know where Molly is aside from "somewhere thataway"), has a 61.73% chance of hitting her. Which is exactly the same probability of hitting her if she rolls evenly on her regular Athletics defense.

The Elder Gruff, who has the same Alertness roll and thus the same chances of seeing through Molly's veil, has a 93.83% chance of hitting the girl he cannot see, hear, or otherwise locate.

Not taking every single advantage you can come up with is not "playing favorites." You are not GMing to beat the PCs. You are GMing to provide reasonable challenge, facilitate the story, and, yes, occasionally, to give the PCs something that their tactics will succeed against.

That is true, but how willing the GM is to allow something is based on how much sense it makes, and with a veil, these declarations make a lot of sense. Further, the block strength is the block strength, the declarations are gravy. I don't know when you decided that a 3 shift block should defend you from a powerful fae with no extra narrative work work, but I do not think that is the case (the fact that the 3 shift block worked for Molly clearly means she put in that extra narrative work).

I decided no such thing. I decided that a 3-shift block against perception should, if your opponent does not beat the block, keep you from being perceived. And not being perceived means you are not a viable target. Not being a viable target means you are not directly attacked.

A 3-shift block working for Molly doesn't "clearly" mean she put in "that extra narrative work." It "clearly" means that her opponents couldn't beat that 3-shift block to find her.

As I quoted above I feel I am representing your point accurately.

And you are wrong.

You yourself said words to the effect of "The GM should not use all of the options at his disposal, because the Gruffs are low level mobs."

No. I said words to the effect of, "The GM isn't going to use all the options at his disposal, because it's not his job to make sure the PCs fail."

Once again: Do you give every encounter your PCs face the full range of consequences? If you do, then I have difficulty imagining it's a fun game. If you do not, then by your logic you are cheating the nameless goons out of all of their available options and are playing favorites.

I'd really like you to answer that. I've asked it a couple times now, and I don't believe you've answered it.

If he does use all his options, your system fails to model what you said it does.

And if he uses all of his options, the simplest fight becomes a long, tedious slugfest as the PCs have to exhaust every single consequence that his opponents can have, and the PCs are going to be hard pressed to win anything.

This does not make a fun game. That is the GM's job, to make sure the game is fun and fair to the PCs, not to make sure that every goon is a tough, clever badass who is going to take every advantage he can possibly come up with.

Therefore your system's success is contingent upon the whims of the GM.

Having the Gruff make a declaration of any kind is the whim of the GM. As far as I know, nowhere in the book does it say the GM has to make a declaration on behalf of an NPC in response to anything. Acting at all is the whim of the GM--letting the numbers play out as they do is letting the game mechanics decide things without other input.

The GM making such a declaration is the GM saying that he wants the Gruff to succeed in beating the block. This is fine, and something I've done occasionally to spice up an encounter--but there is nothing saying that I have to do so.

Having the gruff's failure to beat the veil count as a partial success is the whim of the GM that is not in line with other direct character conflicts (i.e., attack roll vs. defense roll) described in the game. Does someone rolling a 3 and failing to beat a 4-shift shield spell mean he gets a partial success too?

Let's say you have a character who is very athletic--an expert, in fact, in freerunning who has an Athletics score of Superb, but Discipline score of only Fair. He has to jump across a gap. A Malvora vampire shows up and hits him with Incite Emotion as a block, instilling a debilitating fear of heights in the guy of 3 shifts, which he does not beat with his Discipline score.

Does he get to jump anyway with his Athletics roll to beat the block, despite the fact that the block is not physical in nature?

Edit: Thinking about it again, I suppose if you absolutely have to have the Gruff attack, treat it like a reverse ambush. If failing to detect the ambushers means you defend rolling from 0, then failing to detect your target could mean you roll your attack from 0 instead, against the defender's normal defense roll.

[Jimmy]

Other things are likely to bypass this as well, such as social attacks (if I know you're in the room, just not where), etc. 

"Your thoughts betray you...a sister...Obi Wan was wise to hid her from me!"

"Nooooooo!"