Common Rituals

[Tedronai]

"I took a bath" is a statement of fact which happened in the past - a declaration.

So is "I killed you".  That doesn't mean we stop asking for attacks and just let people Declare their actions in combat.

I think many should be more difficult than the "target of 3" you mentioned.  It's context that matters.  Lighting a fire in a downpour is difficult while lighting a fire with dry wood and good tender is comparatively easy.

Given that you'd be fine with 'I lit a fire' using Declaration rules that entirely bypass that difficulty or ease, I'm not sure I understand this objection.

If you're talking about boosting declaration rolls I don't see it.  I'm open to being convinced though...can you describe an action you take now which makes a fact from yesterday (or even a minute ago) more likely?  Have to admit I'm skeptical. 

Failure of a Declaration roll does not necessarily mean that the Aspect is not true, but merely that it does not come to the forefront as a truth known to the character.
It could be not true.  It could be true but the character doesn't know about it.  It could be true and the character knows about it, but it just doesn't matter enough to be represented as an Aspect.

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't see that. It says you can make declarations to say you have things. As in you already have them. Is there something I'm missing?

Yes.

Taran covered what.

Your response to him was incorrect, since the Declaration is actually about acquiring a dolphin heart. It's not about what you already have. The fact that you're playing out a mini-scene should make that obvious.

If the GM allows maneuvers to be easier because things are interesting, people will just be Errol Flynning all over the place. Which is fine, if you want to leave the feel of Dresden behind. I would argue you should be playing a game where that type of thing is more encouraged, like Wushu, or fits the theme better like SoTC, but eh, whatever works.

Two things.

1. You're wrong. I judge maneuvers based on interestingness and it doesn't lead to anything that seems out of place in Dresden. Whatever Errol Flynning is.
2. In my experience, "that seems more suitable to a different game" is generally a fancy way to insult someone or something.

Per the current rules maneuvers are context dependent but the guidance is that context matters within the scene. It's a simulation mechanic, not a narrative one. I was wrong about it being a TN 3 but it's still not based on "how interesting" the aspect is. Without changing the rules.

The mechanic is, "whatever the GM feels like". That's going to take into account how interested the GM is, for obvious reasons.

Agree to disagree. That's essentially GM fiat. Fiat is fine in a game about GM fiat. This isn't that game.

Yes it is.

I hate to break to you, but the entire Aspect system is 98% fiat. You can't get around that. Fiat also controls what concessions and take-out narrations are acceptable, what the limits of skills are, what complexity a ritual needs for a given effect, what NPCs do, etc.

Pretty much all games, when you get down to it, involve a lot of fiat.

And I don't agree to disagree. You're wrong, and that's not okay. I might not be able to do anything about it, but I'm going to try.

I made a couple of points there. Care to tell me which is not true and why?

The animal analogy is not accurate and there is an incentive to be interesting.

When did I say I don't like it? I said it isn't worth a scene and boring. I did leave out the implied "Prepping" Thaumaturgy, and for that I apologize. Casting can in fact be interesting.

Saying something is boring is generally the same as saying you don't like it, you know.

The things you don't follow.
The first was just saying that I have no issues with declaration that acts the same as a navel gazing maneuver. I just want it to be put in terms of a declaration.
The Second, was saying that maneuvers that follow declarations rules

1. If you put it the terms of a Declaration, it does not act like a navel gazing maneuver. Particularly since it's not an action in a conflict. So you do actually have a problem with Declarations that act like navel gazing maneuvers. (Unless you've changed your mind about the other stuff, that is.)
2. That sentence means literally nothing. Did you accidentally post without finishing writing it?

[UmbraLux]

So is "I killed you".  That doesn't mean we stop asking for attacks and just let people Declare their actions in combat.

This is so obviously weak I shouldn't have to respond.  Is it a statement of preexisting fact when the subject is alive in front of you?

Given that you'd be fine with 'I lit a fire' using Declaration rules that entirely bypass that difficulty or ease, I'm not sure I understand this objection.

a) You're inserting your own assumptions.  I've already stated a preference for using maneuver style target numbers for some declarations.
b) You're also forgetting the 'intent first, mechanics second' approach recommended by the game.  Whether it's a maneuver or a declaration (or even an assessment) probably depends on the situation - the context.
c) Whether the target number would be more or less difficult is open to question. 

In spite of the fallacies noted above, I don't have an issue with using a maneuver to create a fire in one scene and a declaration in another.  Even with potentially different target numbers.  Aspects are contextual!  They need to fit the situation to be used / created. 

Failure of a Declaration roll does not necessarily mean that the Aspect is not true, but merely that it does not come to the forefront as a truth known to the character.
It could be not true.  It could be true but the character doesn't know about it.  It could be true and the character knows about it, but it just doesn't matter enough to be represented as an Aspect.

In the case of a declaration, failure means you don't get to create an aspect.  So yes, one similar or even identical to your intent may be available via assessment or even GM declaration...but so what?  I don't see how that has anything to do with trying to make an action now affect the truth of something in the past.  Unless you're playing some time travel game.

It could be possible, I simply can't think of a situation where context fits.  Perhaps maneuvering to enhance memory preparatory to a knowledge declaration?  But that begs the question of what you're doing to enhance memory...which is why I asked for an example. 

[Sanctaphrax]

Hold on, what exactly is the disagreement here?

[Tedronai]

This is so obviously weak I shouldn't have to respond.  Is it a statement of preexisting fact when the subject is alive in front of you?

It it a statement of preexisting fact to have bathed when you are standing there unbathed?
If the Declaration succeeds, the aspect is retroactively true.

It could be possible, I simply can't think of a situation where context fits.  Perhaps maneuvering to enhance memory preparatory to a knowledge declaration?  But that begs the question of what you're doing to enhance memory...which is why I asked for an example. 

I direct you to my second case of a failed Declaration, where the would-be-Aspect is true, but the character simply doesn't know about it.
Any aspect that could be invoked to increase a knowledge roll (such as Contacts-related aspects, research-maneuver-generated aspects, library-esque-resource aspects, intelligence/education-related aspects...) can potentially increase a Declaration roll.


It's late and I'm tired.  I'll respond to the rest when I get around to it.

[UmbraLux]

It it a statement of preexisting fact to have bathed when you are standing there unbathed?

Ah, but was I bathed or unbathed?  Had that fact been established?  Was it relevant to the story prior to the creation of the aspect?

For the record, I bathe at least once a month, need it or not.   

If the Declaration succeeds, the aspect is retroactively true.

I'd phrase it differently but that's close enough I won't look for nits.  However, the roll is not the only requirement when creating an aspect.  It also must fit the situation / context and get agreement of the group / GM.  Declaring "I own a Ferrari" isn't just a Resource roll at a TN between 2 and 6.  It also needs to fit the situation (How likely is it for your character to own a Ferrari?) and the group / GM (Do they think a Ferrari fits?).  Said Ferrari might actually be a kit car replica after negotiation...or perhaps just an old Pinto.    As a side note, aspects also have to be relevant to be used even if they've been established in the past.  You can't use every aspect you have in every situation (unless you have extremely generic aspects.)

Finally, you need to figure out intent and choose mechanics to fit before even deciding it's a declaration.  If you're trying to take someone out for the first time you probably want the conflict rules instead of the declaration rules.  If you're looking for a bonus against an undead revenant you killed in the past, a declaration may well be appropriate.

I direct you to my second case of a failed Declaration, where the would-be-Aspect is true, but the character simply doesn't know about it.
Any aspect that could be invoked to increase a knowledge roll (such as Contacts-related aspects, research-maneuver-generated aspects, library-esque-resource aspects, intelligence/education-related aspects...) can potentially increase a Declaration roll.

Yep, not arguing this...except to remind everyone that a roll is not the only requirement.

The game world is kind of like Schrodinger's Cat...until something has been established it's fair game.  You could declare the cat either dead or alive.  (Assuming relevant context and buy in from GM & group.)  But once someone has established a game truth it's there until changed...and declarations don't change things, they state facts.

[Lavecki121]

So is "I killed you".  That doesn't mean we stop asking for attacks and just let people Declare their actions in combat.

I feel this actually would work for the Delcaration. It would impose the aspect "Dude I killed You" and now the character is dead but he is still there so probably a Zombie. Declarations aspects stay forever because they are a fact on the world (unless they are consumable aspects). But as long as the group approves of this, it can still be reasonable (as long as its not some big baddie who you would have no ability to kill on your own). There is approval from the group needed and it should move the story or create a better scene.

Remember the point of a declaration is to take the stress of creating everything off of the GM. I also think there is something somewhere that says you cant be selfish with it but I cant find it right now.

EDIT: I Just found this Quote, which would state that if something is set (such as that guy is alive) You cant make a declaration to change it.

There are some situations where a declaration isn’t appropriate, and the GM actually does have things charted out and “set in stone.”

So yea

Hold on, what exactly is the disagreement here?

I think it originally was can you use maneuvers on Thaumaturgy.

[Taran]

So, can you use common rituals to do simple wards?  Like a block against some supernaturals using Lore?  Can it be used in combat?

Sorry for digressing back onto topic   but I actually have a question about it.

What are the types of things a character can do with this?

Can a regular joe supe up a houses defenses against BCV's by hanging garlic over the door and sprinkiling salt in the corners?  How are those kind of things adjudicated?

[Lavecki121]

Haha, thats fine. I think addicted wanted to as well. Also I dont fully understand them either and would like to actually know what they are.

Maybe the other convo could be moved to another post, or should we start another common ritual thread??

[Addicted2aa]

And I don't agree to disagree. You're wrong, and that's not okay. I might not be able to do anything about it, but I'm going to try.
2. That sentence means literally nothing. Did you accidentally post without finishing writing it?

1)  After spending close to an hour at work double checking rules, writing up examples, and editing my argument, I decided, I don't care. I understand your opinion, disagree with it, and don't think it's worth arguing over anymore, at least not in this thread. The argument has gone pretty far afield anyway and my response would have gone even farther. If my being wrong is that big an issue, feel free to start a new thread of PM.
2) Yes I did. I had intended to say that maneuvers that follow declaration criteria are fine by me at my table.

Back to the topic.

So, can you use common rituals to do simple wards?  Like a block against some supernaturals using Lore?  Can it be used in combat?
What are the types of things a character can do with this?
Can a regular joe supe up a houses defenses against BCV's by hanging garlic over the door and sprinkiling salt in the corners?  How are those kind of things adjudicated?

1) I would say no, or rather, it's a waste. Rituals, in general, are borrowing power from another source(though there have been people who say that making a circle should count). Put in quarter, get power. The power for a simple ward seems like a waste when drawing on ancient, and most likely not benevolent powers. Though now that I've said that, there might be some attached to benevolent gods. Maybe a forgotten saint of the catholic church.
2) pretty sure anything you can do in thaumaturgy but I could be wrong. Actually after just reading, it seems you could do evocation, but I can't think there's any ritual quick enough to be worthwhile as evocation. The trick is finding a ritual. Which is something a player can introduce if they want or something the GM can throw out as a temptation. A ritual that just happens to solve plot issue X, but at cost Y. Watch them argue over what to do.
3)That stuff is just putting aspects in place. No ritual needed.
I posted this earlier

As to common rituals specifically, I think I'm reading it incorrectly. I just read it and it says they must do the preparation, but nothing about controlling it when cast. I have to be missing something no?

Anyone have any thoughts?

[GryMor]

Back to the topic. 1) I would say no, or rather, it's a waste. Rituals, in general, are borrowing power from another source(though there have been people who say that making a circle should count). Put in quarter, get power. The power for a simple ward seems like a waste when drawing on ancient, and most likely not benevolent powers. Though now that I've said that, there might be some attached to benevolent gods. Maybe a forgotten saint of the catholic church.
2) pretty sure anything you can do in thaumaturgy but I could be wrong. Actually after just reading, it seems you could do evocation, but I can't think there's any ritual quick enough to be worthwhile as evocation. The trick is finding a ritual. Which is something a player can introduce if they want or something the GM can throw out as a temptation. A ritual that just happens to solve plot issue X, but at cost Y. Watch them argue over what to do.

1) Each instance of a ritual will have a particular source, it is possible there is a "benevolent" source for 'ward that cooks $creature' style rituals, likely offered by an entity that finds $creature to be anathama and wants to promote their eradication.
2) Concur, the trick is finding the ritual you want at the price you are willing to pay from a source that hasn't already been burned out.

[UmbraLux]

@Adicted2aa - Controlling the spell is covered in basic thaumaturgy.  I don't think any of the themed subsets go back through all the mechanics.  In general, I suggest using the basics unless specifically overridden. 

[Sanctaphrax]

1)  After spending close to an hour at work double checking rules, writing up examples, and editing my argument, I decided, I don't care.

Fair enough.

[Addicted2aa]

@Adicted2aa - Controlling the spell is covered in basic thaumaturgy.  I don't think any of the themed subsets go back through all the mechanics.  In general, I suggest using the basics unless specifically overridden.

That's what I figured, but there's this one sentence that seems to disagree with that and I'm wondering if perhaps I'm reading too much into it.

Always, this is a single, specific spell with
pretty much everything other than the target
predetermined. The ritualist must still go
through the steps of preparation, and skills
such as Lore, Discipline, and Conviction do
come into play. But that and the step-bystep
ritual instructions are all that’s needed;

Highlighted the relevant part. It specifically mentions the preparation, and then says, that's all you need. I read this as, that's all you need, but I seem to be in the minority here. This time I'm pretty sure I am wrong, just not sure what I'm missing.

[UmbraLux]

It appears to be discussing 'in character' requirements ("...the ritualist...") rather than game mechanics.  It also states you still need the skills used by standard thaumaturgy - Lore, Discipline, and Conviction.  I don't think you'd need all three if you weren't controlling the power.