Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?

[Wordmaker]

Okay, I see where you're coming from. I'd be more inclined to look at sneaking around the security desk, etc, as a decision the players can make on their own. I wouldn't expect them to buy off a compel just to have the option of trying to find another way through.

Of course, a player could just accept the compel, then use the Fate Point they got to declare that they find a weapon once the fighting starts.

Do you give Fate Points to your villains when your players get them into situations where they can't use their abilities against them? That would seem to be the fair thing.

I don't agree that the rules insist every occassion where someone's primary fighting skill is hindered is a compel, but that's because I don't agree that such a thing counts as being part of a scene's Aspects.

Absolutely the unarmed, injured swordsman is going to have a different story to the armed, uninjured one, but no more different than if he'd been armed and faced with an opponent who was proportionally better enough to injure him just as much.

Whereas if Master Swordsman is commanded to hand over his sword, and the GM compels his "My Sword Is My Life" Aspect to make him refuse, and instead a fight breaks out and he offends the Freeholding Lord the group is visiting, that creates a whole series events which would not have happened under any other circumstances.

Do you see what I'm getting at? One use of a compel just offsets potential injury and influences how effective the character will be. The other creates new conflict and drama that otherwise did not exist. Compels are entirely about choice and conflict. With your example, the conflict was already there. The fight was going to happen anyway. The only choice is whether the player wants to go into it with their stunt bonus or an extra Fate Point.

The only part of DFRPG I can think of that fits the idea of giving Fate Points when a player can't use an ability is when magic-users can't use their magic because of running water, and even that's only loosely defined. Even thresholds don't count as compels because the value of the threshold simply becomes a penalty to using powers. There's no mention in YS about giving a White Court Vampire a Fate Point when they cross a threshold without an invitation and therefore can't use their powers.

Your way of doing it is totally valid and not unbalancing, it's just not how a lot of people would interpret the system. And that's why I would consider it a houserule.

[crusher_bob]

Wizards do not seem all that better to me.

Here's a sample combat wizard
Submerged (10 refresh, 35 skill points)

5: Conviction, Lore
4: Discipline,
3: Endurance,
2: ,
1: , , , ,

-1 the sight
-3 thaumaturgy (+1 crafting strength)
-3 evocation (spirit, , ) (+1 spirit power)
-1 refinement (+2 Spirit Control)
-1 refinement (2 item slots)

6 item slots:
enchantment focus (+2 crafting power, 2 focus slots)
offensive focus (+2 offensive spirit control, 2 focus slots)
defensive item (power 8, 3 uses, 2 enchantment slots)
defensive item (power 8, 3 uses, 2 enchantment slots)

So, this attacks with control 8, power 6 evocations, and defends with 2 power 8 layered defensive items.

Now, imagine that a ghoul attacks this character from ambush.

The ghoul tags an aspect, rolls +2 on the fudge dice, for a total of 8 to attack, and has a base damage of 4.

The wizard activates his first defensive item, for a power 8 defense.  The ghouls attack matches it, so the attack gets through, and the block provided by the defensive item it shattered (important if there are more attackers).  The wizard is looking at 4 damage, so he activates his second defensive item to provide 4 armor, reducing the damage he takes to 0.

Then, the next round happens.  The ghoul goes first, and the wizard probably has to use a defensive item to bring up another block, but it's highly unlikely that the ghoul will roll a +4 on the dice and break through.

Then the wizard lets fly with an evocation.  He has a rote that's a power 8 attack, so he does that an pays 3 stress.  Assuming everyone rolls a net of 0 on the dice: the ghoul defends at 5, so it's looking at an 11 stress hit, so it would have to take 7 points of consequences to stay in the fight.  But random unnamed ghouls aren't likely to do that, so the fight is over.

The wizard is down 3 item charges and 3 mental stress.  If there had been two ghouls, the wizard would probably be down 6 charges ad have his 3rd and 4th mental stress boxes marked off by the time the fight is over.  Or if the wizard had room to move, he has a chance of ending the fight in first non-ambush round with a supplemental move and a zone wide attack.

[Mr. Death]

Okay, I see where you're coming from. I'd be more inclined to look at sneaking around the security desk, etc, as a decision the players can make on their own. I wouldn't expect them to buy off a compel just to have the option of trying to find another way through.

Certainly, you could do it either way--but buying off the compel wouldn't be to have the option of trying, it would mean they get it through. Remember, either roll, or compel, not both. For me, it'd depend partly on the nature of the character--a sneaking-inclined character might have it as a straight challenge to get through. A sword-wielding bruiser who couldn't sneak his way out of a paper bag would be compelled.

Of course, a player could just accept the compel, then use the Fate Point they got to declare that they find a weapon once the fighting starts.

Which is, effectively, the same as buying out, cost wise.

Do you give Fate Points to your villains when your players get them into situations where they can't use their abilities against them? That would seem to be the fair thing.

I would, but my players rarely seem to set up those kinds of situations. It's a tactic I've been trying to break them into.

I don't agree that the rules insist every occassion where someone's primary fighting skill is hindered is a compel, but that's because I don't agree that such a thing counts as being part of a scene's Aspects.

Could be a scene aspect. It could be an invoke of the character's aspect. Or it could be an invoke on a maneuver. There's plenty of ways it could go down.

Absolutely the unarmed, injured swordsman is going to have a different story to the armed, uninjured one, but no more different than if he'd been armed and faced with an opponent who was proportionally better enough to injure him just as much.

Oh, I can see differences happening. In the former, he might look into finding other ways to defend himself, or having a spare weapon. In the latter, he might devote himself even further to training with the sword, or with defeating this specific opponent.

And depending on why the swordsman was up against such odds, I might consider that a compel too (I've got one PC who has the aspect Terrifying Reputation, which I tend to compel along the lines of, "The villain's heard of your reputation, so she's tossing a half-dozen ogres at you.").

Whereas if Master Swordsman is commanded to hand over his sword, and the GM compels his "My Sword Is My Life" Aspect to make him refuse, and instead a fight breaks out and he offends the Freeholding Lord the group is visiting, that creates a whole series events which would not have happened under any other circumstances.

Do you see what I'm getting at? One use of a compel just offsets potential injury and influences how effective the character will be. The other creates new conflict and drama that otherwise did not exist. Compels are entirely about choice and conflict. With your example, the conflict was already there. The fight was going to happen anyway. The only choice is whether the player wants to go into it with their stunt bonus or an extra Fate Point.

I see no reason why you can't do both, or why the option of doing one has an effect on doing the other. Compels are about choice and conflict, but they're also about complication--if a Master Swordsman is up against three ghouls without his sword, his life is definitely more complicated--potentially shorter, too.

The only part of DFRPG I can think of that fits the idea of giving Fate Points when a player can't use an ability is when magic-users can't use their magic because of running water, and even that's only loosely defined. Even thresholds don't count as compels because the value of the threshold simply becomes a penalty to using powers. There's no mention in YS about giving a White Court Vampire a Fate Point when they cross a threshold without an invitation and therefore can't use their powers.

I seem to remember YS calling things like that compels against the high concept in general, just like using iron against a Fae is a compel against their high concept.

Actually, that's an example I end up using a lot (My group's also got a Fae in it). When I compel the Fae's weakness to Iron to say, for example, that the Faerie can't wrench open a fire hydrant and cause a magic-grounding torrent of water and they buy out, that doesn't mean the Faerie can grip the iron fire hydrant with its bare hands. It means there's some option available that means they don't have to--a rubber-gripped wrench, perhaps.

That's something I see a lot of people not quite getting--a buy off doesn't mean that an obstacle doesn't happen, it just means that the obstacle isn't a problem. Buying out of the "Wheelchair Bound" compel doesn't mean you get up out of the chair and walk up the stairs, it means there's a ramp. Buying out of a "Blind As A Bat" compel doesn't mean your eyesight returns, it might mean that the text you're trying to get is miraculously available in braille.

[JDK002]

@Mr. D: I think the issue with the compel is you're implying you're doing compels that are in no way tied to any aspects.  If there is no proper aspect to use then a compel doesn't happen.  It's easy enough for a GM to always make sure there is an appropriate aspect to do so.  But fact is the GM doesn't need to lean on the compel mechanic to seperate a player from his weapon any more than he does a wizard from his foci.

In short, if a player doesn't want to tie his weapon to an aspect.  He doesn't get the luxury of a FP every time you make it difficult to use said weapon.

[Tedronai]

Buying out of a compel does not necessarily mean that the complication of the Compel does not happen.
It can simply mean that it somehow doesn't negatively impact their activities despite happening exactly as described.

So they go through airport security, having left their weapons behind.
Sometime before combat becomes reasonably likely, they manage to bribe a security agent, gaining access to new weapons which sufficiently suit their purposes.
Or, as Harry, Michael, and Sanya manage in the novels, they find a way around security and never have to leave their weapons behind in the first place.
Or something else creative that my brain is too mushy to come up with right now.

[JDK002]

Buying out of a compel does not necessarily mean that the complication of the Compel does not happen.
It can simply mean that it somehow doesn't negatively impact their activities despite happening exactly as described.

So they go through airport security, having left their weapons behind.
Sometime before combat becomes reasonably likely, they manage to bribe a security agent, gaining access to new weapons which sufficiently suit their purposes.
Or, as Harry, Michael, and Sanya manage in the novels, they find a way around security and never have to leave their weapons behind in the first place.
Or something else creative that my brain is too mushy to come up with right now.

Beat me to it.  Buying out of a compel doesn't negate the situation, it's up to the group as a whole to come up with what happens next. Maybe a character with holy powers just doesn't trip the metal dectectors.  Maybe a player who has an aspect "I know a guy for that" knows the head of security there.  Maybe a particularly stealthy player finds a way to get around security entirely.

Like most things in this game, it's a matter of how creative the group can be.

[Lavecki121]

I will go back to how Death did his post because there has been a lot of conversation in between.

Being denied your favorite weapon isnt a compel unless you have an aspect tied into it. It really isnt that hard to justify getting a new weapon without spending fate points and it really doesnt create that much of a disadvantage. Even if I have invested fate points into it, why should I get more fate points for being denied the always on bonus that you say shouldnt happen with stunts.

On the subject of fairness of stunts:
It is just +1 to the attack at the most, which isnt game breaking. Added into the +2 to damage doesnt break that much either because if I decide to be supernatural and take the same stunts then I am still better.

Mortal:
Sword WR3 Stunt +1attack Stunt +2damage

Supernatural:
Sword WR3 Stunt +1attack Stunt +2damage Inhuman Strength

Supernatural
Sword WR3 Stunt +1attack Stunt +2damage Inhuman Speed

The first supernatural guy has just increased his damage by 2
The second supernatural guy has just increased his defense by 1

All things being equal, the supernatural guy is better because of his powers.

Also, Mr. Death, When you quoted this:

An aspect can also allow you to gain more fate
points by bringing complications and troubling
circumstances into your character’s life.
...
When she
compels one of your aspects, she’s indicating that
your character is in a position where the aspect
could create a problem or a difficult choice.
...
There are a few ways an aspect can complicate
a character’s life via compels: it limits the
responses available to a character in a certain
situation, it introduces unintended complications
into a scene, or it provides the inspiration
for a plot development or a scene hook for that
character.

I think you missed this part: compels one of your aspects

The rules say nothing about issuing comels for scene aspects

[Mr. Death]

@Mr. D: I think the issue with the compel is you're implying you're doing compels that are in no way tied to any aspects.  If there is no proper aspect to use then a compel doesn't happen.  It's easy enough for a GM to always make sure there is an appropriate aspect to do so.  But fact is the GM doesn't need to lean on the compel mechanic to seperate a player from his weapon any more than he does a wizard from his foci.

In short, if a player doesn't want to tie his weapon to an aspect.  He doesn't get the luxury of a FP every time you make it difficult to use said weapon.

I don't mean to imply that at all. As you point out, it's easy for a GM to make sure there's an appropriate aspect.

What I keep coming back to is, really, DFRPG seems to me a game that tries to eliminate straight GM fiat as much as possible. So I figure when a GM says something like, "You can't bring a sword in there," the player will ask "Why?" The answer is usually along the lines of, "This place doesn't allow weapons," which is more or less the same as saying "This place has the aspect 'No Weapons Allowed'."

The player is going to want to keep his weapon--after all, it's got his apex skill on it, and he's invested these stunts that make him very powerful with this weapon. So what happens when the player wants to keep the weapon? Even if it's not a compel, the player can spend a fate point for a declaration to keep it...which works out to about the same thing as buying out of a compel.

Lavecki: +1 to the attack isn't gamebreaking, but it's the highest an attack stunt can be, for what I see as extremely easy circumstances--in effect, it's a flat +1 bonus to the skill. Same with the stress bonus--it's going to be used in the vast majority of rolls, and stunts are not supposed to be something that adds a bonus every time. It's supposed to be situational, and to my reading, just the weapon type is not nearly rare enough of a "situation" to justify the full bonus.

Also, Mr. Death, When you quoted this:
I think you missed this part: compels one of your aspects

The rules say nothing about issuing comels for scene aspects

No, the rules are perfectly clear that you can issue compels for scene aspects. It just doesn't say it in the bit I quoted.

[Lavecki121]

No, the rules are perfectly clear that you can issue compels for scene aspects. It just doesn't say it in the bit I quoted.

I am looking through the compels section and all ones related to it and have yet to find that bit. If you could point me in that direction when you get a chance that would be great.

EDIT: I found this:

Compelling
Other Aspects
Being able to interact with the aspects of
others creates a powerful opportunity for the
clever player to set up another character to be
compelled.

However this:

If you are aware of and can access an
aspect on another character or NPC, you may
spend a fate point to try to trigger the circumstances
of a compel (see page 100) on the target.

seems to say that you need to know aspects of the players.


The only other thing I could find was this:

Scene Compels
Scene aspects may imply some circumstances
that will befall any (or many) of the characters
in the scene—Everything Is Burning! is
a classic example and a frequent aspect in any
scene involving Harry Dresden. In such a case,
it’s entirely apropos to act as if that aspect is on
each character’s sheet and compel (see page 100)
the aspect for each of them, dishing fate points
all around and nicely covering the effects the
aspect has on the characters in the scene.
Technically speaking, a player could try to use
a scene aspect to initiate a mass compel, but it’d
be a pretty expensive proposition—he’d have to
spend a fate point for every character he wants
to be affected by the compel.

But this seems like a silly thing to have affect one person as they specifically mention mass compels.

[JDK002]

I don't mean to imply that at all. As you point out, it's easy for a GM to make sure there's an appropriate aspect.

What I keep coming back to is, really, DFRPG seems to me a game that tries to eliminate straight GM fiat as much as possible. So I figure when a GM says something like, "You can't bring a sword in there," the player will ask "Why?" The answer is usually along the lines of, "This place doesn't allow weapons," which is more or less the same as saying "This place has the aspect 'No Weapons Allowed'."

The player is going to want to keep his weapon--after all, it's got his apex skill on it, and he's invested these stunts that make him very powerful with this weapon. So what happens when the player wants to keep the weapon? Even if it's not a compel, the player can spend a fate point for a declaration to keep it...which works out to about the same thing as buying out of a compel.

Lavecki: +1 to the attack isn't gamebreaking, but it's the highest an attack stunt can be, for what I see as extremely easy circumstances--in effect, it's a flat +1 bonus to the skill. Same with the stress bonus--it's going to be used in the vast majority of rolls, and stunts are not supposed to be something that adds a bonus every time. It's supposed to be situational, and to my reading, just the weapon type is not nearly rare enough of a "situation" to justify the full bonus.
No, the rules are perfectly clear that you can issue compels for scene aspects. It just doesn't say it in the bit I quoted.

If I'm not misunderstanding you, the difference between the two scenarios is this:

Scenario A: The group is trying to get into a night club where they suspect a murderous WCV is hiding hanging out.  The GM places the scene aspect "heavy security" and compels every player with physical weapons to give them up at the door.  He can either take the FP or buy out.

Scenario B: The GM places no scene aspect.  Instead as the players try and enter an npc bouncer says "sorry guys but I can't let you in with weapons.  You'll have to give them up  while you're inside.". At this point the players either oblidge to give up their weapons, refuse and not be allowed in, or make a declairation by rolling or spending a FP to tag for effect to get inside with their weapons.

The difference is in B there is no offer of a FP.  The player has to spend one or not and come up with a different plan.  scenario A actually limits the players options of giving up the weapons, or buying out and entering with weapons in hand.

Given your dislike for stunt stacking and near flat bonuses from stunts.  I would figure youwould be all for making players spend FP to keep said weapons for the scene.

I do tend to agree with you on the notion of a stunts only requirement being that you have your weapon of choice on hand.  It basically means the only time you won't have the weapon close at hand is when the GM prys it away from you for a scene.  That gets really tiresome and contrived for both player a GM real fast.  I usually require a secondary condition to be met with stunts like that.

One I came up with for a player in my group allowed her a bonus to defense rolls when she had her sword AND when being attacked by a melée action.  This basically made her a fantastic defender against close combat foes, but a sitting duck againts firearms and evocation. 

[Lavecki121]

The difference being that there would be no situation B. Also I feel there are many situation where a PC would not have their weapon. Its the same as not having your cell phone or not having your car. It is probably in a reasonably accessable place, but you simply dont have it all the time.

[JDK002]

The difference being that there would be no situation B. Also I feel there are many situation where a PC would not have their weapon. Its the same as not having your cell phone or not having your car. It is probably in a reasonably accessable place, but you simply dont have it all the time.

Scenario B is perfectly viable and breaks no rules I'm aware of.  The GM isn't required to make scene aspects, and isn't requred to compel every time he puts a choice in front of the players.

I think people sometimes forget that a compel is an either/or situation.  You buy out of the compel or you MUST go along with it.  If you're not compelling a player you're basically letting them come up with whatever sort of solution they want to try out.

[Sanctaphrax]

This whole time you've been acting as if me saying that preventing someone from using a weapon through a compel is some gross breaking of the rules through which I'm totally wrecking the balance of the game.

What?

That sentence doesn't quite make grammatical sense to me. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

It looks like you might be saying that I've been saying that weapon-deprivation is a balance-wreaking Compel. But you quoted me saying the opposite, so...what do you mean?
 

I'm curious where you're getting that 95%.

The figure is actually probably closer to 100%. But I knocked off 5% because I figured it was better to pick a too-low figure.

He's a faerie. He lives with other faeries, and has faeries working for him. He doesn't live on earth and he doesn't have money. And he's a fey bowmaker himself. He can easily acquire a fey bow, and he'd have real trouble getting a human one.

It would take a pretty weird series of events to put him in a situation where he can get a human bow and not a fey one.

You know what I mean.

I do not. I really have no idea why what you posted there was at all relevant.

Yeah, they are. One stunt gives a +1 to every swing of the weapon. Another stunt gives a +2 on every successful hit...

Page 147 defines stacking as adding in the same way to the outcome. Accuracy and stress are clearly different ways. Definition not satisfied.

There's a world of difference between, "They make mistakes," and "Everything in this rulebook can be thrown out because it's all wrong."

And if I had to guess, I'd say they weren't writing the rulebook for optimized characters at all. They were writing it to try and accurately model the monsters in the books, possibly with an eye toward what the average character would be capable of.

It's a possibility.

But accepting that interpretation leads directly to the conclusion that Evil Hat intended Feet In The Water mortals to shred vampires and Ghouls in duels. Because with the stats in OW, semi-optimized Feet In The Water mortals can do exactly that.

[Sanctaphrax]

I am sorry that my example was not understandable. Sorry all I will try again.

One thing is that when you attack and hit your target. Ever attack point above your target's defend is damage. Then you add your weapon rating to the damage you have already done. Where as in something like D&D you have a attack rating to decide if you hit. Then a Damage rating to decide how much damage you do. What I am trying to say is if Murphy attacks someone with a pistol weapon rating 2. Her guns skill in Our World is Great:4. Now she roll and only gets 4. She gets no plus or minus to her skill from that roll. The defender rolls 1. Because Murphy's attack is 3 over the defender's defense she does 3 stress plus her pistol's weapon rating of 2 for a total of 5 stress. So a pistol can do more damage then say a M60 in the hands the of a of a skilled user or more to the point. A bullet to the head from a pistol kills and a bullet from a M60 to the foot hurts but may not kill you.

The other thing is in Your Story page 251. In the "what you can do with it " for evocation example. Harry attacks a red vampire. His player—Jim—decides he doesn’t want to mess around with this thing too much, so he chooses to summon up 8 shifts of power for the spell. Harry has a power specialization in fire magic, so his Conviction is treated as Fantastic (+6) for the purposes of the spell. That means that casting this spell will give him a 3-stress mental hit—one stress for everything up to 6, and then two more to get to 8.The difficulty to cast the spell is Legendary (+8). That’s high, but fortunately Harry’s blasting rod gives him a +1 to control, so Jim starts by rolling his Discipline at Great (+4). He gets a +2, for a total of Fantastic (+6), and invokes Harry’s Wizard Private Eye aspect to give him +2 more. This controls all the power necessary for the spell, and aims the spell at his target at +8. Harry yells “Fuego!” as he points his blasting rod, sending a column of flame at the vampire, an attack at Legendary rated at Weapon:8. The vampire rolls to defend against Harry’s roll of Legendary and gets a Great (+4), which means the blast strikes home and inflicts a 12-stress hit on him (4 for the attack, 8 for the weapon value). The vampire’s Inhuman Toughness reduces this to 11 stress, and the vampire takes a severe consequence of Extra Crispy and a 5-stress physical hit.

 In above example. Harry's spell is an attack at 8 and Weapon is rated at 8. So the vampire rolls to defend against Harry’s attack of 8 and gets a Great (+4), which means the blast strikes home and inflicts a 12-stress hit on him (4 for the attack, 8 for the weapon value). The thing is to do that damage Harry took 3 mental stress to do it and spent a Fate point. Yes he may have taken down the red vampire one hit, one round (maybe) and yes stoping a attacker before they hit you is a good thing. But who is to say someone like Thomas could not do the same damage. Yes it would take a round or two longer but he would not need the fate point like Harry did and maybe even with out the 3 stress Harry took. Not saying Thomas may not spend a fate or take stress. Only saying you he may not. So a wizard the may win in first, second, or even the third round of combat. But can anyone say a super like Thomas or even a mortal like Murphy can not do the same if only taking a round or to more to do it and with out the mental stress wizard takes to cast evocation spells. True Thomas or Murphy could get hit for stress but Harry took or maybe even more and maybe not. You never know how it will be. But to me wizards are not better or worse.

At least that is what I get from the rules.
Hope that was more understandable Sanctaphrax.

Yes, that was more understandable. And unless I'm misreading, you're totally correct.

[Wordmaker]

Actually, accepting a compel then later spending a Fate Point to find a weapon is a better option that buying off the compel.

If I have 5 Fate Points and you offer me 1 to lose my sword, then I later spend 1 Fate Point to find a sword, I have 5 Fate Points.

If I have 5 Fate Points and you offer me 1 to lose my sword, but I refuse the compel, I have 4 Fate Points.

I wouldn't agree that players being told a place has a no-weapons policy is GM fiat, not in the slightest. GM fiat is the GM making a ruling that ignores game mechanics, like deciding an opponent automatically hits in combat or hides without letting the players roll to spot them. GM fiat is definitely not creating elements of the setting and having the NPCs act in accordance with those elements by refusing to let a character enter an establishment while armed.

What it comes down to is that I see compels as ways of influencing character decisions and circumstance. The Aspect "By The Book" could be compelled to force a character to hand over weapons in situations where they're not allowed to have them. A scene Aspect "No Guns Policy" is, going by the guidelines in YS, a pretty poor and uninteresting Aspect. It adds no flavour to the scene.

I'd happily toss my players a Fate Point for good roleplaying or cool one-liners, but I don't see the need to do so every time they find themselves unable to fight at the top of their game, and for sure I don't consider it a compel, not according to the rules as written. That's just how my group and I interpret the rules and like the game to be.

But like I said, this is all different play styles. Most gaming groups have their own houserules and interpretations of core rules. It's a bad idea to assume everyone else follows the same interpretation, or that they even should do so.