Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?

[Vairelome]

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.

Certainly, house rules can and should vary based on the individual preferences of each gaming group.  However, the RAW are an objective reality: they say something specific and definable in most circumstances.  Sometimes there is ambiguity; sometimes this ambiguity can be resolved by close analysis or creator commentary.  This is important because it's that objective foundation that provides a basis for communication between gaming groups--we are all starting from the same point, even if the introduction of house rules means we may end up is very different places (not that there's anything wrong with that).

So if someone makes the claim, "the RAW say that ties go to the defender," that person is wrong.  If they say, "in my game, we have a house rule such that ties go to the defender," they are not wrong (unless their game does not in fact have that house rule).  You can have a further discussion as to whether that house rule is on balance a good idea, but this is a matter of taste/opinion.

[Mr. Death]

    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.

It says "any or many". If a scene aspect is only affecting some of the characters--i.e., if the aspect is "Heavy Security" and only one or two of the characters carry any sort of weapon--then yes, it makes perfect sense to compel some and not others.

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?

Yes. My point is you'd been acting one way about my suggestion about compels, then you said something else that contradicted it. Earlier in the thread, this is how you referred to me issuing compels for depriving people of their weapons:

But for whatever reason, you've changed that. You've made it essentially impossible to deprive people of their chosen weapons. This breaks the stunts founded upon that limitation.

You should recognize that this issue is caused by your approach and not by some foundational truth of the system.

You had been saying that, basically, I was changing the rules by issuing compels when a character took away the weapon, and that unbalanced the game because the stunts already have limitations. And now you're saying that compelling away a weapon is a "good and common" compel. I was pointing out the contradiction in your arguments--is issuing compels for taking away weapons "good and common" or is it something that breaks the stunts?

Thing is, it's already nigh on impossible, so long as the player has a fate point to spend and is willing to spend it. What I'm saying is, these kinds of stunts just make it a ton more likely that a player is going to buy out of the compel to lose his weapon--because instead of just losing the weapon rating, he's now also losing a +1 to attack, +2 to stress, and +2 to defense. That much of a swing in advantage is well worth spending one fate point to either declare or buy out of a compel.

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.

Eh, not necessarily. Bows take time to make, so even if he is an expert bow maker, he might need a bow now. Or so might anyone else with those stunts.

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

Except they affect the end result the same way--by adding stress. And they have the exact same condition, a condition that is going to apply the vast majority of the time that skill is used, something that stunts are not supposed to do.

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.

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.

I've already done the math on this. Without the stunts, even a Submerged mortal has to get creative if he wants to take out a Ghoul without getting hurt--either through invoking scene aspects, his own aspects, making maneuvers, or doing other preparatory or support actions. With the stunts, even a Feet In The Water mortal only has to swing his sword because this just-found-out-the-supernatural-exists beginner is a better and stronger fighter than a supernaturally powerful monster.

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.

Saying the place has a no-weapons policy isn't GM fiat, no. Nor is the GM saying the NPCs won't let them in without weapons. When it comes to GM fiat is when the GM declares that the players just cannot take in the weapons no matter what they do--there's a game mechanic in place for creating that kind of complication and disadvantage (compels), and just declaring that your character can't get them in is ignoring that.

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 disagree. Being armed or not is plenty of flavor--a character who's armed when going in to meet a mob boss is going to act differently than one who knows he's not armed but everyone else is.

Removing someone's weapons from them is a social power play as much as anything else. Walking into a dangerous place unarmed adds tension to the scene, especially if and when a fight does break out.

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.

That's fair, but again, I'm not saying "every time they find themselves unable to fight at the top of their game." I'm saying it's when they could and would, but something is forcing them not to.

If Harry just leaves his staff and blasting rod home for whatever reason, like he doesn't think he'd need them, or doesn't feel like carrying them around, that's not a compel. If an enemy is waiting specifically for Harry to come out without the staff and blasting rod to attack, that might be a compel. If Harry goes out with the staff and blasting rod, fully intending to use them, and circumstances dictate that he can't, then it is a compel.

[Lavecki121]

I've already done the math on this. Without the stunts, even a Submerged mortal has to get creative if he wants to take out a Ghoul without getting hurt--either through invoking scene aspects, his own aspects, making maneuvers, or doing other preparatory or support actions. With the stunts, even a Feet In The Water mortal only has to swing his sword because this just-found-out-the-supernatural-exists beginner is a better and stronger fighter than a supernaturally powerful monster.

Can you show this math again. Assuming everyone rolls at 0?

Saying the place has a no-weapons policy isn't GM fiat, no. Nor is the GM saying the NPCs won't let them in without weapons. When it comes to GM fiat is when the GM declares that the players just cannot take in the weapons no matter what they do--there's a game mechanic in place for creating that kind of complication and disadvantage (compels), and just declaring that your character can't get them in is ignoring that.

True but what is the effect of them buying off the compel? What happens if they accept the compel then spend it to find another weapon (which has been pointed out to cost less)? Why would a character go through the front enterance with their weapon if they know there is a no weapons policy? Are you still compelling them on the no weapons policy if they try to sneak in the back?

[JDK002]

Looks like we are actually on the same page after all.  I to agree that if it's not a compel, you're giving the players free reign to solve the issue however they see fit.  If that means refusing to give up their weapons and forcing their way inside, than the GM should honor that decision.

In that context I do see where you're coming from.  If you don't compel a player to give up their weapons, they are more likely to do everything they possibly can to get inside AND keep their weapons.

[JDK002]

Can you show this math again. Assuming everyone rolls at 0?

True but what is the effect of them buying off the compel? What happens if they accept the compel then spend it to find another weapon (which has been pointed out to cost less)? Why would a character go through the front enterance with their weapon if they know there is a no weapons policy? Are you still compelling them on the no weapons policy if they try to sneak in the back?

Honestly, I would probably use GM veto rights if someone made a declairation that they find a weapon minutes after giving up theirs.  Especially after it's already been established that everyone inside has had to give up their weapons as well, not just the players.

When a players declairation breaks "scene canon" (especially in this context when it's a baltant attempt to circumvent a compel) is one of the only times I would as a GM give a "hard no" to a player.

[Mr. Death]

Can you show this math again. Assuming everyone rolls at 0?

A ghoul's attack skill is at 4, their defense is at 5, and they do Weapon:4 damage.

At Feet in the Water, without stunts, a mortal can have his attack and defense at 4, and Weapon:3. Rolling evenly, the ghoul is dodging, while the mortal is taking 4 stress the first hit, and a consequence every hit after. If the mortal wants to have a chance, he's got to either be very lucky, or pull a few tricks.

With the stunts, a Feet in the Water mortal is attacking at 5, defending at 6, and with Weapon:5. This means he's dodging all the ghoul's attacks, and every attack he lands is causing a consequence. The mortal has to do little else besides just swing his sword.

At Submerged, without the stunts, the Pure Mortal can be attacking and defending at 5, with Weapon:3. Meaning if everyone's rolling zero, it's still taking several rounds for him to even injure a ghoul--if he wants to end the fight quickly, he's got to pull some kind of tricks.

True but what is the effect of them buying off the compel? What happens if they accept the compel then spend it to find another weapon (which has been pointed out to cost less)? Why would a character go through the front enterance with their weapon if they know there is a no weapons policy? Are you still compelling them on the no weapons policy if they try to sneak in the back?

Could be any number of things if they buy off a compel--maybe they intimidate the bouncer out of frisking them. Maybe they bribe the bouncer. Maybe they just tell them to go fornicate with themselves and walk in anyway.

They might not know there is a no weapons policy until they get there, and it may not be a meeting where they can sneak in. If they do sneak in, that might engender complications in itself, so it might well be a compel. You send a different message when you come in the front door (you're expected, you're okay with being seen, so on some level you're, well, on the level) than when you sneak in the back (you want to be unseen, with your weapons, implying you're planning to gank someone).

As for finding the weapon later, yeah, it depends on plausibility. If it's something where nobody at all is supposed to have weapons, there'd need to be justification. If it's just the players who're disarmed, then they could grab one from a mook.

[Lavecki121]

A ghoul's attack skill is at 4, their defense is at 5, and they do Weapon:4 damage.

At Feet in the Water, without stunts, a mortal can have his attack and defense at 4, and Weapon:3. Rolling evenly, the ghoul is dodging, while the mortal is taking 4 stress the first hit, and a consequence every hit after. If the mortal wants to have a chance, he's got to either be very lucky, or pull a few tricks.

With the stunts, a Feet in the Water mortal is attacking at 5, defending at 6, and with Weapon:5. This means he's dodging all the ghoul's attacks, and every attack he lands is causing a consequence. The mortal has to do little else besides just swing his sword.

At Submerged, without the stunts, the Pure Mortal can be attacking and defending at 5, with Weapon:3. Meaning if everyone's rolling zero, it's still taking several rounds for him to even injure a ghoul--if he wants to end the fight quickly, he's got to pull some kind of tricks.

So at FiW with stunts the character is 1 better than the submerged without stunts and only in defense. Also assuming that everyone always rolls zero, the ghoul will never hit the submerged character in the same way that the FiW character will never hit the ghoul.

Could be any number of things if they buy off a compel--maybe they intimidate the bouncer out of frisking them. Maybe they bribe the bouncer. Maybe they just tell them to go fornicate with themselves and walk in anyway.

Why not just play this out instead of making it a ton of compels? There are social rules for a reason.

They might not know there is a no weapons policy until they get there, and it may not be a meeting where they can sneak in. If they do sneak in, that might engender complications in itself, so it might well be a compel. You send a different message when you come in the front door (you're expected, you're okay with being seen, so on some level you're, well, on the level) than when you sneak in the back (you want to be unseen, with your weapons, implying you're planning to gank someone).

As for finding the weapon later, yeah, it depends on plausibility. If it's something where nobody at all is supposed to have weapons, there'd need to be justification. If it's just the players who're disarmed, then they could grab one from a mook.

Again why is there a need for the compel then? The situation should dictate the actions. Not the other way around.

If there is a club with "No Weapons Allowed" aspect. The characters walk up to the front and you are compeling them to give up their weapons. This sort of takes narrative away from the characters by forcing them to decide before they could reasonably figure out what to do.

In the same situation they walk up to the club and the guard says "no weapons" then the characters play out what to do (which would inevitably be the same as the buy off) If they are not social characters then they probably have to end up spending FP to win the social combat anyway.

[Mr. Death]

So at FiW with stunts the character is 1 better than the submerged without stunts and only in defense. Also assuming that everyone always rolls zero, the ghoul will never hit the submerged character in the same way that the FiW character will never hit the ghoul.

The character is one better in defense and two better in stress dealt. A FiW character is causing stress with the first attack, while the Submerged one without stunts is taking three rounds to do the same. Yes, we're assuming everyone's rolling zero, but that's still three rounds where he's being attacked. One thing I've found is able to harm even the most difficult-to-hit character is sheer volume of attacks.

Why not just play this out instead of making it a ton of compels? There are social rules for a reason.

Maybe because any conflict takes time to play out--even what should be one-round quickie takedowns have, in my experience, taken a lot longer because the dice refuse to cooperate--and the real point of the scene is what's going on inside the club. Making the interaction just a compel moves things along to the real meat quicker.

Yes, there is a system for social interactions, but that doesn't mean everything has to be done through it.

Again why is there a need for the compel then? The situation should dictate the actions. Not the other way around.

If there is a club with "No Weapons Allowed" aspect. The characters walk up to the front and you are compeling them to give up their weapons. This sort of takes narrative away from the characters by forcing them to decide before they could reasonably figure out what to do.

I really don't understand what you're getting at here. The narrative is entirely in the characters' hands--if they want to keep the weapons and they pay off the compel, they have plenty of input on how and why that happens.

In the same situation they walk up to the club and the guard says "no weapons" then the characters play out what to do (which would inevitably be the same as the buy off) If they are not social characters then they probably have to end up spending FP to win the social combat anyway.

Because spending a long time arguing with the bouncer isn't the reason I'm sending them to this club.

[Lavecki121]

The character is one better in defense and two better in stress dealt. A FiW character is causing stress with the first attack, while the Submerged one without stunts is taking three rounds to do the same. Yes, we're assuming everyone's rolling zero, but that's still three rounds where he's being attacked. One thing I've found is able to harm even the most difficult-to-hit character is sheer volume of attacks.

Im pretty sure that the submerged character is dealing stress on the first attack by your stats....

Maybe because any conflict takes time to play out--even what should be one-round quickie takedowns have, in my experience, taken a lot longer because the dice refuse to cooperate--and the real point of the scene is what's going on inside the club. Making the interaction just a compel moves things along to the real meat quicker.

Yes, there is a system for social interactions, but that doesn't mean everything has to be done through it.

I really don't understand what you're getting at here. The narrative is entirely in the characters' hands--if they want to keep the weapons and they pay off the compel, they have plenty of input on how and why that happens.
Because spending a long time arguing with the bouncer isn't the reason I'm sending them to this club.

True, but thats the players choice to sit there and argue with the bouncer instead of just giving up the weapons. They dont have to have a long drawn out situation like that unless they want to.

[Mr. Death]

Im pretty sure that the submerged character is dealing stress on the first attack by your stats....

Sorry, I meant consequence instead of stress there.

True, but thats the players choice to sit there and argue with the bouncer instead of just giving up the weapons. They dont have to have a long drawn out situation like that unless they want to.

Itbeen my experience that most players don't want to spend a whole time dealing with a low level goon when they know the big boss is waiting for them through the next door. And it's not tactically sensible either--they risk spending more fate points, taking social stress and consequences dealing with the goon, then have to go into social conflict with the boss at a disadvantage because of that? As a player or GM, I'd much rather just get it out of the way to get to the real point of the scene.

And seriously, I've had conflicts long and drawn out that neither the players nor I wanted, just because the dice weren't cooperating. I've had it happen where mooks with a defense of 1 and only two stress boxes--who shouldn't have lasted a full round--kept getting lucky with the dice and took four or five rounds to bring down.

[Lavecki121]

Sorry, I meant consequence instead of stress there.

Ok yes. That makes sense. But still, I believe you are arguing on the stacking of these stunts? If so the FIW character hits the same as a Submerged with one stunt, and the Submerged causes consequences on first swing with one stunt. All things being equal the ghoul should probably take some stunts.

It been my experience that most players don't want to spend a whole time dealing with a low level goon when they know the big boss is waiting for them through the next door. And it's not tactically sensible either--they risk spending more fate points, taking social stress and consequences dealing with the goon, then have to go into social conflict with the boss at a disadvantage because of that? As a player or GM, I'd much rather just get it out of the way to get to the real point of the scene.

And seriously, I've had conflicts long and drawn out that neither the players nor I wanted, just because the dice weren't cooperating. I've had it happen where mooks with a defense of 1 and only two stress boxes--who shouldn't have lasted a full round--kept getting lucky with the dice and took four or five rounds to bring down.

Thats kind of my point. Why should they waste their time arguing with the goon to keep their weapons when this drains their health and resources when they could just give up their weapons and have more stress and FP at their disposal.

[Mr. Death]

Ok yes. That makes sense. But still, I believe you are arguing on the stacking of these stunts? If so the FIW character hits the same as a Submerged with one stunt, and the Submerged causes consequences on first swing with one stunt.

I'm arguing that the stunts act as a flat, continuous bonus to nearly every usage of a given skill, something that the Stunt guidelines say they're not supposed to be. That the stunts, effectively, just inflate the skill rating rather than being situational bonuses.

All things being equal the ghoul should probably take some stunts.

The ghoul already has. It's taken several refresh worth of powers in order to hit harder and be harder to hit than mortal creatures. And it's being overwhelmed almost completely by someone who is, per the rulebook, just a beginner in the supernatural.

Thats kind of my point. Why should they waste their time arguing with the goon to keep their weapons when this drains their health and resources when they could just give up their weapons and have more stress and FP at their disposal.

You're missing my point. I'm saying why make it a social conflict at all when it's just going to bog down the session and keep you from getting to the real reason that they're going to this place? Making it a compel gives at least some incentive/compensation to the players for playing along, and just moves the whole thing along quicker.

And I'm saying that with these stunts, even the lost of 1 fate point (or two, considering the swing) is worth the flat bonuses that the stunts come with.

[Haru]

You're missing my point. I'm saying why make it a social conflict at all when it's just going to bog down the session and keep you from getting to the real reason that they're going to this place? Making it a compel gives at least some incentive/compensation to the players for playing along, and just moves the whole thing along quicker.

If you don't want to get bogged down by the situation, just don't. I would probably just let them go into the club without even thinking about their weapons, and when they are inside and start to take things apart and I don't like it, that's where I would bring in the compel and say "well guys, don't you think a club like this would be a weapon free zone? You'll get a fate point if you deal with this in a different way." That's a great way to bring it in as a compel.

[Mr. Death]

That could work, but I prefer having things happen in chronological order--if the bouncer's supposedly taken away their weapons, they should know when they go in. Not go in thinking they were allowed to keep their weapons, then have them have been retroactively taken away 20 minutes before. It doesn't seem right to have something happen to the characters and not have the players know about it.

Put it this way: If they know they're disarmed, they're going to approach things differently than if they think they're armed. They might be thinking, "Okay, even if this goes badly, I can still fight my way out" instead of "Okay, I'm unarmed, I better make sure this doesn't go badly."

[JDK002]

So at FiW with stunts the character is 1 better than the submerged without stunts and only in defense. Also assuming that everyone always rolls zero, the ghoul will never hit the submerged character in the same way that the FiW character will never hit the ghoul.

Why not just play this out instead of making it a ton of compels? There are social rules for a reason.

Again why is there a need for the compel then? The situation should dictate the actions. Not the other way around.

If there is a club with "No Weapons Allowed" aspect. The characters walk up to the front and you are compeling them to give up their weapons. This sort of takes narrative away from the characters by forcing them to decide before they could reasonably figure out what to do.

In the same situation they walk up to the club and the guard says "no weapons" then the characters play out what to do (which would inevitably be the same as the buy off) If they are not social characters then they probably have to end up spending FP to win the social combat anyway.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning about the compels.  By definition all compels force players into making a decision on the spot.

Players tend to get caught up in the mundane details.  In a situation like this, the players may sit there for 15 or 20 minutes outside of the club deliberating on what to do.  It can drag down the entire session horribly and totally kill the momentum the GM was building up.  Worse yet, that 20 minutes may have zero impact on what happens once they get inside.  The players don't know that, but the GM does.  Thus may decide to just cut through that with a compel to just get on with it.