Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?

[Haru]

Ok, preferring a chronological order, that I understand. Though fate handles that kind of retcon pretty well, I think.

[JDK002]

Ok, preferring a chronological order, that I understand. Though fate handles that kind of retcon pretty well, I think.

I'm pretty against retroactive compelling, it just feels like a bait and switch.  The players depend on the GM to give them a clear and concise idea of the situation.  Retconned compels could also potentially make any declairations or maneuvers made entirely useless, complicating things even further.

On a general side note not directed at anyone: I think it's a player fallacy to assume that when a GM compels your weapons away that it means they are setting you up for an unfair fight.  In some cases the GM may really just be setting up an entirely narratve scene.  Removing the players weapons to try and prevent the players from taking a "shoot first" approach.  Thus triggering a needless conflict that slows the game down.

[Lavecki121]

I preffer a chronological order as well. What I was saying is that it shouldnt be that big of a deal for the bouncer to say "sorry no weapons" and the characters to either oblige or find some way around it. It shouldnt bog down play at all especially in this system where characters dont follow what the GM wants half the time.

If they want to innitiate social combat on the guy to keep their weapons they can, if they want to attack that mook guard and go in screaming they can, if they want to make a declaration that the guard is checking out some girl and they sneak past, they can but thats more of how the scene is set as opposed to needing to compel away something they prefer to have.

I personally dont think that a PC is going to be carrying his sword 90% of the time he is not in/going to a combat. The office worker who likes to go and hunt ghouls in his spare time with a sword is going to have a hard time if the ghouls attack him at his office. I dont see that as a compel, but you, if i understand you right, do.

[Sanctaphrax]

Yes. My point is you'd been acting one way about my suggestion about compels, then you said something else that contradicted it...

I think I see the misunderstanding here. Dunno whose fault it is, but you've got the wrong idea of what I was trying to say throughout the thread.

What I was trying to say is that some parts of the game's balance require it to be possible for a PC to be deprived of an item without a Compel.

That's what makes an IoP not free Refresh.

Except they affect the end result the same way--by adding stress...

Adding accuracy and adding weapon ratings are pretty clearly different ways to add to the same outcome. The rest of this bit has been addressed earlier in the thread.

To some extent, yes--PCs are supposed to be above average, so it's reasonable to me that they'd be able to fight and win against a relatively common supernatural creature like a Red Court Vampire or a Ghoul--but there's a difference between able to fight and win and guaranteed to fight and win. These stunts push it firmly in the latter category when taken together.

Nah, you're still not guaranteed. A flukey roll can ruin your day.

And even without stunts, no creativity is needed for a fairly certain win. Just have an Aspect that mentions your weapon of choice and invoke that with the FP you could have spent on stunts.

[JDK002]

I think I see the misunderstanding here. Dunno whose fault it is, but you've got the wrong idea of what I was trying to say throughout the thread.

What I was trying to say is that some parts of the game's balance require it to be possible for a PC to be deprived of an item without a Compel.

That's what makes an IoP not free Refresh.

Adding accuracy and adding weapon ratings are pretty clearly different ways to add to the same outcome. The rest of this bit has been addressed earlier in the thread.

Nah, you're still not guaranteed. A flukey roll can ruin your day.

And even without stunts, no creativity is needed for a fairly certain win. Just have an Aspect that mentions your weapon of choice and invoke that with the FP you could have spent on stunts.

The difference there though is that the player has spend a FP every timethey want to invoke a "Master of Blades" aspect for a +2.  Which we all agree is perfectly acceptable.  As FP are a limited resource. 

Mr.D's objection sums up as making a character that makes stunts that are essentially "I get a free invoke without needing a FP or aspect every time I swing a bladed weapon" is isn't restrictive enough.  Which in a lot of ways I tend to agree.

[Wordmaker]

To be honest, if a particular social interaction is bogging down play, it shouldn't be a conflict or a compel. It should just be the GM deciding on whatever outcome best suits the story.

Now, the GM not letting players take in weapons is very different from NPCs not letting them take in weapons. I'm curious about how the distinction would play out, because I'd be very inclined to have the NPCs enforce such rules well before the GM saying "you don't have your weapons."

I personally wouldn't enforce such rules without NPCs there to do it.

[Lavecki121]

The difference there though is that the player has spend a FP every timethey want to invoke a "Master of Blades" aspect for a +2.  Which we all agree is perfectly acceptable.  As FP are a limited resource. 

Mr.D's objection sums up as making a character that makes stunts that are essentially "I get a free invoke without needing a FP or aspect every time I swing a bladed weapon" is isn't restrictive enough.  Which in a lot of ways I tend to agree.

Yea but that is why the bonus is halved. I feel this is also about how the game is played. I could have many situations in which the characters don't have their weapons, but apparently you feel as though they always have them no matter what unless you take then away from them. Where as I feel the majority of the time the character does not have their weapons.

In the case of the ghoul, he is at 6 defense of moving plus gets a free supplemental action that he can use to move out of the zone. A mortal character using a sword would have to be in the same zine and this gets a -1 to their attack because they have to use a supplemental action. The +1 and -1 cancel out but the ghoul still gets his +1. And yet a mortal is guaranteed a win? I don't think so

[JDK002]

To be honest, if a particular social interaction is bogging down play, it shouldn't be a conflict or a compel. It should just be the GM deciding on whatever outcome best suits the story.

Now, the GM not letting players take in weapons is very different from NPCs not letting them take in weapons. I'm curious about how the distinction would play out, because I'd be very inclined to have the NPCs enforce such rules well before the GM saying "you don't have your weapons."

I personally wouldn't enforce such rules without NPCs there to do it.

The distinction is that just because an NPC says "you can't come in without weapons" doesn't mean the PCs have to listen to him.

[Lavecki121]

The distinction is that just because an NPC says "you can't come in without weapons" doesn't mean the PCs have to listen to him.

He still creates a barrier and can add complications to the PC life if they don't listen

[JDK002]

Yea but that is why the bonus is halved. I feel this is also about how the game is played. I could have many situations in which the characters don't have their weapons, but apparently you feel as though they always have them no matter what unless you take then away from them. Where as I feel the majority of the time the character does not have their weapons.

In the case of the ghoul, he is at 6 defense of moving plus gets a free supplemental action that he can use to move out of the zone. A mortal character using a sword would have to be in the same zine and this gets a -1 to their attack because they have to use a supplemental action. The +1 and -1 cancel out but the ghoul still gets his +1. And yet a mortal is guaranteed a win? I don't think so

Maybe it's just a difference in player mentality.  In my experience in role playing in general is that players keep their weapons with them as often as they possibly can. Most of the time players don't even think about it.  It's just assumed they have their "canon" weapons on them (or very close at hand) unless otherwise stated.  IMO it's about as easy to part any player with their weapons as it is to part a Wizard player with their foci.

As far as the pure mortal vs ghoul fight.  The example you gave was brought up a bit earlier in the thread.  The notion tha a ghoul has to essentially run and play keep away to win in a fight against a feet in the water level pure mortal seems kinda silly. 

[Lavecki121]

Sorry I have a really good reply but it hinges on this +2 to defense thing which I cant find anywhere. Can somone give me a page number for a cannon stunt that provides a flat +2 for just using the weapon?

EDIT: So far the closest thing I have found is Shiro's +1 to defense when facing one opponent in OW 242

[Sanctaphrax]

There is none. There's only one physical defence stunt in canon, and its effect is kind of vague. It's called Too Fast To Hit.

Whether stunts can add +2 to a defence roll was a question here a while back, IIRC. I'm pretty sure that by the RAW they can, but it'd probably be more balanced if defence bonuses were limited to +1 like attack bonuses.

Of course, this is only tangentially related to the question of whether using stunts to get really good with a specific weapon type is fair.

[Lavecki121]

It applies to a mock fight and I did find one example being in Shiro's write up as a +1 to block, which would make the assumption that they should be limited to just +1 and not +2

[Lavecki121]

So with my previous assumption:

Ghoul (per OW):
    +4: Fists; Athletics
    +3: Endurance; Alertness; Intimidation; Presence
Powers:
    Claws (weapon 2 fist attack)
    Inhuman Strength & Speed
    Supernatural Recovery


Pure Mortal (No stunts) (A)
    +4: Weapons; Athletics
    +3: Alertness; Endurance

Now if we assume all is equal (which will be everyone rolls 0) then Ghoul goes first. Generally you wont be in the same zone as an opponent at start. So ghoul moves toward mortal A and attacks. A takes hit the hit and is down a mild consequence with 2 stress, cant hit them back. A takes another hit next turn now has Mild, Moderate and 2 stress. Same next turn only now we have all but extreme and no stress. And so it goes on.

Now with the assumption that A had not used or gained any FP at this point. Ghoul goes first. FP to sustain the defense down to 7. Makes a maneuver to gain +2 on next turn. Ghoul again attacks and is blocked again from the use of yet another FP (6 left). A attacks and tags previous maneuver. Hits ghoul w/ +1 stress total 4 Ghoul now has 2 stress and a mild. Ghoul clears mild and attacks again (5). A attacks and uses FP to hit (4). Ghoul has 4 stress and Mild. Ghoul clears mild and attacks (3). A sets up maneuver. (2) and attacks Ghoul is at Moderate and 4 stress. (1) attack with FP (0) ghoul is at Moderate Severe no stress. Ghoul attacks 4 stress. set up maneuver to hit. Moderate and 4. Hits ghoul Mild Moderate Severe 2 stress. Moderate Severe and 2. Has to set up another maneuver. Mild Moderate Severe 4 stress. Hits Ghoul Mild Moderate Severe Extreme O stress. A is now at Mild Moderate Severe Extreme no stress and has to set up a maneuver to hit the ghoul. The ghoul will win next round and this is fight to the death.

Lets do it again. Ghoul rushes A and they use FP to block (7). A attacks and drops 7 fate points on personal aspects and scene aspect she has discovered before ghoul gets there. Total 17 Damage. Ghoul takes Mild Severe Extreme and one stress. Next ghoul gets rid of mild and inflicts 4 stress....

This can go on. In most of these situations the PM without stunts will lose. The only thing the stacked stunts do is bring them onto a similar level. A ghouls block is at 5 so there is a stunt to match that. A ghoul gets +2 to their damage so there is a stunt to match that. A ghoul probably should have taken something to increase its attack because now I have the slight advantage and can fare much better at this game.

I may have only spent 3 refresh where the ghoul spent 8 but...The ghoul can clear away 2 milds per scene. The ghoul gets bonuses to might and cant have endurance restrict. The ghoul can sneak better than I can. In all the powers, the ghoul is essenially getting the same stunt as me and two more stunts at minimum for 2 refresh, where the PM has to spend 3 or more refresh for those same stat boosts. The ghoul could use a weapon if it wanted and get a higher Weapon Rating but it should probably switch its +4 from fists to weapons. The ghoul could take a stunt that gives it +1 to attack but it does have that ability to clear out consequences so...

The stunt is balanced against the powers especially in regards to cost. Consider inhuman speed: Alertness at +4 for initiative, thats one stunt for the PM and the bonus is +2 not +4; All athletics checks at +1, there is another stunt; +2 to athletics when sprinting, well there is another we are up to 3; Ignore the -1 penalty when moving as part of another physical action, that makes 4; Difficulty factors when moving durring stealth are reduced by two, that makes five.

So for two refresh the ghoul gets 5 refresh worth of stunts, one of which is more powerful than normally allowed. A PM only gets a +2 refresh for being PM so with this one stunt the PM is already underpowered by one refresh. This goes on for each power that the ghoul has (save claws which is a guaranteed weapon as opposed to the one that can be lost and thats only a 1 refresh power anyway). These stunts arent overpowered, they just have the advantage of being able to combine themselves easier.

[Wordmaker]

The distinction is that just because an NPC says "you can't come in without weapons" doesn't mean the PCs have to listen to him.

Well that's the thing. As a GM, I wouldn't tell the players they couldn't go in with their weapons. I'd have NPCs inform them of the rule, and let the players decide how to proceed.