Author Topic: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?  (Read 48927 times)

Offline JDK002

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 355
    • View Profile
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #210 on: March 30, 2013, 02:57:30 PM »
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.
If you don't mind making a potentially long scenario dealing with how the players are going to get inside that's perfectly fine, nothing wrong with that at all.  But the initial reasoning for the compel was to actively prevent the players from getting hung up at the door.  To move the scene along and to get to the actual point of the scene as a whole.

All told, in a situation like that I would probably be transparant with my players.  "Hey I'm just trying to keep the scene going and not get you guys hung up on stuff that doesn't really matter.  Can everyone just take a compel and FP for me so we can get to the meat of the scene?"

Offline Wordmaker

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 917
  • Paul Anthony Shortt
    • View Profile
    • Paul Anthony Shortt's Blog
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #211 on: March 30, 2013, 03:12:10 PM »
My players would usually just agree to hand over their weapons, unless they were going in with the intention of starting a fight, in which case they wouldn't exactly be talking to the doorman about it. They'd sneak in, or fight their way through from the start.

Offline Lavecki121

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1891
    • View Profile
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #212 on: March 30, 2013, 04:18:07 PM »
My players would usually just agree to hand over their weapons, unless they were going in with the intention of starting a fight, in which case they wouldn't exactly be talking to the doorman about it. They'd sneak in, or fight their way through from the start.

Same with my players. In which case there isnt a need for the compel because the scene dictates the actions.

Offline JDK002

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 355
    • View Profile
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #213 on: March 30, 2013, 04:57:55 PM »
Same with my players. In which case there isnt a need for the compel because the scene dictates the actions.
You both must have some pretty compliant players.  I would say the odds of my group going along with a scene like that is about 50/50.  I know another group where it would probably drop to about a 30% change of them going with it.  Especially if they even slightly feel a fight may break out.

Offline Taran

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 9860
    • View Profile
    • Chip
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #214 on: March 30, 2013, 05:00:18 PM »
I suppose it would depend on whether or not they know in advance - before they go - whether they'll have to leave their weapons.

Not having weapons should be the norm, shouldn't it?  I don't know many modern cities that let people just carry around an arsenal.

Offline JDK002

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 355
    • View Profile
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #215 on: March 30, 2013, 05:45:49 PM »
I suppose it would depend on whether or not they know in advance - before they go - whether they'll have to leave their weapons.

Not having weapons should be the norm, shouldn't it?  I don't know many modern cities that let people just carry around an arsenal.
An arsenal?  No.  But it doesn't typically detur people from carrying knives, brass knuckles, or even concealed pistols.  Remmeber your players are dealing with things that don't fall in the realm or vanilla mortal laws.

When I was younger most of my friends (and myself) all usually had knives or brass knuckles on us. 

Here in Phoenix it's ferrectly legal to carry around a holstered pistol as long as it's not concealed, and it's not too difficult to get a concealed weapons permit.

Offline Taran

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 9860
    • View Profile
    • Chip
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #216 on: March 30, 2013, 05:48:06 PM »
Huh...Yeah that doesn't happen around here where I'm from.

My point was that a character might get a compel to bring a weapon in much less get compelled to leave it behind.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2013, 06:29:08 PM by Taran »

Offline Wordmaker

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 917
  • Paul Anthony Shortt
    • View Profile
    • Paul Anthony Shortt's Blog
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #217 on: March 30, 2013, 06:46:24 PM »
I suppose my players are pretty easy-going, all right. A few actually enjoy ending up in trouble without all their tools to bear. In fact, part of the reason my new DFRPG campaign is only at Up To Your Waist level is because a couple of players found they preferred the idea of having less power and knowledge at their disposal to handle threats.

Offline Mr. Death

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 7965
  • Not all those who wander are lost
    • View Profile
    • The C-Team Podcast
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #218 on: March 30, 2013, 07:08:47 PM »
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.
Possible? Yes. I just think it's unlikely. I tend to assume that players will have their 'standard' equipment more or less by default unless otherwise stated--look at the books. The only times that Michael, for example, is ever without Amoracchius--either to hand or within reasonable distance--is when someone has specifically taken it from him.

Harry has his staff and blasting rod unless he's specifically noted as leaving it behind, having it taken away, or he has trouble bringing it into some place.

I can't for the life of me think of a scene where Murphy doesn't have a gun on her somewhere.

Gard's walking around in broad daylight with a battleaxe, but it's okay because she stows it in a dufflebag.

And I don't know about you, but if I thought it was a reasonable possibility that I was going to be attacked by ghouls, I'd make sure to have something that goes bang on me at all times, too.

Quote
Nah, you're still not guaranteed. A flukey roll can ruin your day.
Yeah, but we were working under the argument of even rolls. And even with just average rolls (-1 to +1), the stunts create a significant advantage on the player who's supposed to be playing someone who's barely aware that Ghouls exist.

Quote
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.
That's costly, though--getting creative lets you do more without spending your whole pool of fate points. The game should normally reward creativity. These stunts reward complacency.

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
This is a good rundown. Though I question the assumption that they're going to start in separate zones. My combats tend to start in the same zone. That said, the ghoul can tag the consequences he inflicts, too--that first scenario ought to be over a lot quicker in that case.

Quote
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.
Brings them past that level, actually--the mortal is dodging at 6 to the Ghoul's 5, and is doing Weapon:5 damage to the ghoul's 4. So if they're rolling evenly, the situation's totally reversed from that first scenario--the ghoul isn't landing any hits, and the pure mortal is dealing consequences each time--even if the ghoul is healing two milds, he's not healing the stress--so that third shot's going to need a Moderate to survive anyway, or two milds, which is in a way worse because he can't heal them now, and the pure mortal can tag his next attack for +4.

Apply those stunts to a Submerged pure mortal, and I can't think of anything in OW that can hit them physically (some of the spellcasters can manage it, maybe the Plot Device level characters), and only the ones with Supernatural Speed would ever avoid a hit.

What it comes down to, still, is that just having a particular weapon is not a strict enough restriction for the full bonus to these stunts--most any player, unless they're carrying around some ludicrous monstrosity of a weapon, can figure out some way to keep their weapon on or near them unless specifically otherwise stated. So even if there are going to be times they just don't have the weapon without a compel, that's going to be such a minority that it still plays out as a flat, permanent bonus to the skill.

Sanctaphrax, you say it's okay because Items of Power are balanced based on it, but Items of Power are supernatural powers--which are supposed to be more broadly applicable than stunts. You can't use the same rubric for one as you would the other. Hell, even the one supernatural power I can think of that provides a flat bonus to the attack skill--True Aim in the Sword of the Cross--still has a more strict restriction than "just holding this sword."
Compels solve everything!

http://blur.by/1KgqJg6 My first book: "Brothers of the Curled Isles"

Quote from: Cozarkian
Not every word JB rights is a conspiracy. Sometimes, he's just telling a story.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_T_mld7Acnm-0FVUiaKDPA The C-Team Podcast

Offline Lavecki121

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1891
    • View Profile
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #219 on: March 30, 2013, 08:41:20 PM »
Quote
This is a good rundown. Though I question the assumption that they're going to start in separate zones. My combats tend to start in the same zone. That said, the ghoul can tag the consequences he inflicts, too--that first scenario ought to be over a lot quicker in that case.

Forgot about that I will edit it later but my point still stands that a PM without stunts is pretty much toast and has a very low chance of survival. Though the same applies to the second situation so I will rework it and see if I still have the same conclusion.

Quote
Brings them past that level, actually--the mortal is dodging at 6 to the Ghoul's 5, and is doing Weapon:5 damage to the ghoul's 4. So if they're rolling evenly, the situation's totally reversed from that first scenario--the ghoul isn't landing any hits, and the pure mortal is dealing consequences each time--even if the ghoul is healing two milds, he's not healing the stress--so that third shot's going to need a Moderate to survive anyway, or two milds, which is in a way worse because he can't heal them now, and the pure mortal can tag his next attack for +4.

They are dodging at 5. I had this discussion just a little while ago. The only cannon stunt that provides a dodge bonus is the +1 to athletics, +2 to athletics when sprinting or the +1 to weapons. So I guess they could dodge at 6 but the ghoul has the same ability. They are doing 5 damage compared to 4 but thats because the ghoul is using a lower powered weapon than the PC. That was kind of my point because the FIW PM with stunts is no more powerful than a Submerged PM without stunts except for damage dealt, and that is weapon dependant. I could have the character have a Weapon 5 hand laser and the same would apply so thats not really all that different.

Quote
Apply those stunts to a Submerged pure mortal, and I can't think of anything in OW that can hit them physically (some of the spellcasters can manage it, maybe the Plot Device level characters), and only the ones with Supernatural Speed would ever avoid a hit.

Past Submerged I dont think there is anything that OW can hit anyways. A submerged character without stunts is on par with the Ghoul. Add just one stunt and the ghoul can no longer hit them anyway so it doesnt matter too much. And the stunt that I am talking about is not weapon dependant so..

Quote
What it comes down to, still, is that just having a particular weapon is not a strict enough restriction for the full bonus to these stunts--most any player, unless they're carrying around some ludicrous monstrosity of a weapon, can figure out some way to keep their weapon on or near them unless specifically otherwise stated. So even if there are going to be times they just don't have the weapon without a compel, that's going to be such a minority that it still plays out as a flat, permanent bonus to the skill.

There are other situations where the limitation doesnt apply too well so we should probably rewrite half the cannon stunts anyway.

Quote
Sanctaphrax, you say it's okay because Items of Power are balanced based on it, but Items of Power are supernatural powers--which are supposed to be more broadly applicable than stunts. You can't use the same rubric for one as you would the other. Hell, even the one supernatural power I can think of that provides a flat bonus to the attack skill--True Aim in the Sword of the Cross--still has a more strict restriction than "just holding this sword."

"In keeping with its purpose" is pretty much the same thing though. The SotC is probably not going to be used for any purpose than its purpose. Also Michael may always have his sword on him but he cant really use it against PM or else it breaks its purpose.

Offline JDK002

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 355
    • View Profile
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #220 on: March 30, 2013, 09:08:54 PM »
You kind of just proved Mr.D's point on the IoP.  Having to have the sword, being unable to use it against pure mortal types, and having to keep in line with the swords agenda is significantly more restrictive than "having the sword on your person". 

Think in Death Masks when Saluriel gave up the coin, knowing that neither Michael or Sanya could be able to strike him.  If either of them did, it would be against the swords agenda.  This is exactly why IoP's require you to tie a character aspect to them.

Offline Lavecki121

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1891
    • View Profile
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #221 on: March 30, 2013, 09:47:39 PM »
Thats what Sanctafrax was saying about IoP's. It may be more restrictive but that is because it is tied to an aspect. I would expect IoP's to be compelled more than just a regular weapon as well.

Offline JDK002

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 355
    • View Profile
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #222 on: March 30, 2013, 10:36:57 PM »
Thats what Sanctafrax was saying about IoP's. It may be more restrictive but that is because it is tied to an aspect. I would expect IoP's to be compelled more than just a regular weapon as well.
And what these unrestrictive stunts do is try and turn any mundain weapon into a kind of IoP without any of the restrictions.

Offline Lavecki121

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1891
    • View Profile
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #223 on: March 30, 2013, 10:54:10 PM »
Um...no. an IoP is a item that has powers, which I have just pointed out are better than stunts, and can get a two refresh discount to those powers. Not only that but the iop can also function as a mundane weapon in its own right. So there is no possible way to make a mundane weapon into an iop just by using stunts.

Offline JDK002

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 355
    • View Profile
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #224 on: March 31, 2013, 12:36:02 AM »
Um...no. an IoP is a item that has powers, which I have just pointed out are better than stunts, and can get a two refresh discount to those powers. Not only that but the iop can also function as a mundane weapon in its own right. So there is no possible way to make a mundane weapon into an iop just by using stunts.
2 refresh worth of stunts that give you comprable combat bonuses to inhuman strength that are always on as long as you posess a general type of mundain weapon sounds pretty similar to an IoP to me.  Actually, it sounds better because it's not nearly as restricitive.