Mental Evocations solutions?

[Lavecki121]

Yeah, but it's still weird and unfortunate if system quirks discourage people from making characters similar to the main character of the novels.

I didnt think this would be an issue since most characters arent facing the same situations that Dresden does. Most of the stuff he faces are by himself where in this game its ussually group based most of the time. If players were making characters similar to the main character in the novel then they would all be spellcasters with authority issues; anger problems; a close group of friends; and a terrific moral compass. Thats not how the system is set up though. You can make characters that could be the complete opposite of Dresden and their shouldnt be anything wrong with that.

[Sanctaphrax]

There's nothing wrong with making a character who's different from Dresden.

But in the Dresden Files RPG, Harry Dresden should be a viable character.

[Lavecki121]

And he is regardless of the outcome of this discussion. I dont understand this point as a valid point in the argument.

[Sanctaphrax]

My concern is that since mental evocations are more damaging than physical ones, making a physical evoker would be the Wrong Choice.

That would be bad.

(Though as I said before, it's not certain that things would go that way.)

[Lavecki121]

i dont think it would. It would be hard - impossible to make a mental evocator that can affect the environment (though he could affect their perceptions but it still negates preparation) plus (even though you dont like it as a balancer) there does exist the lawbreaker, which would be much easier to delve into with a mental evocator.

Plus if you have mental evocators you will have people who are able to resist them more.

Look at is this way. Instead of physical evocators being the norm what would happen to the system. Toughness powers would probably affect mental, and speed might be speed of thought. These things would create more barriers to mental attacks (since that is what this hypothetical situation is based on.) And now someone wants to have physical evocation. Well the game hasnt given us anything for that so now we have to come up with different things for it.

Do you understand where I am going?

[GryMor]

I know it's generally not supposed to be the case of balancing using the laws, but for direct attack, it's easy to avoid First Law violations with physical evocation. It's really really hard to avoid Third Law violations with mental evocation. The inefficiency of Law Breaker compared to refinement (specialization or foci) makes it less viable for PC use, for direct attacks, rather than illusion maneuvers. If Harry is taken as a PC, then he's certainly a viable character.

[Locnil]

You have not. But you either get a FP or you lose a FP. Thus zero sum value

Being vulnerable to Compels is not a weakness. So taking a Compellable Trouble Aspect doesn't make your character less powerful.

The benefit (FP) compensates for the penalty (Compels).

Ah, ok, so I haven't misunderstood the rules or your position then.

So how exactly is it a zero-sum game? Assuming that other sources of FP mitigates the other expenditures of FP, Every time you take a compel, you gain 1 FP. Which you can then use, to refuse the next one. Meaning that you must accept half of all compels that come your way, for absolutely no benefit whatsoever, since you must use those FP to buy off the other compels. This is assuming the GM never escalates, which makes the situation even worse.

[Sanctaphrax]

Look at is this way. Instead of physical evocators being the norm what would happen to the system. Toughness powers would probably affect mental, and speed might be speed of thought. These things would create more barriers to mental attacks (since that is what this hypothetical situation is based on.) And now someone wants to have physical evocation. Well the game hasnt given us anything for that so now we have to come up with different things for it.

Do you understand where I am going?

I think so. But I prefer not to assume that people will be houseruling when I consider balance.

That being said, you might be right, it might not be an issue. Like I said, this is more a worry than a definite problem.

Ah, ok, so I haven't misunderstood the rules or your position then.

So how exactly is it a zero-sum game? Assuming that other sources of FP mitigates the other expenditures of FP, Every time you take a compel, you gain 1 FP. Which you can then use, to refuse the next one. Meaning that you must accept half of all compels that come your way, for absolutely no benefit whatsoever, since you must use those FP to buy off the other compels. This is assuming the GM never escalates, which makes the situation even worse.

Refusing Compels is often a bad deal, it's true.

But people don't refuse Compels half the time. If you're accepting an appropriate number of Compels (which might be all of them, in some games), the FP from them will pay for any Compels you reject and the leftovers will be perfect compensation for the Compels you accepted.

If the above isn't true, the GM should adjust the hardness of the Compels until it is. Because the game isn't supposed to punish you for being Compellable...if anything, it's supposed to do the opposite.

In practice, the balance is probably never perfect. But it's usually close enough that the difference isn't measurable. (Though that's partly because measuring this stuff is hard.)

[Locnil]

So... basically, compels are cost-neutral because you're supposed to houserule them so they are.

[Tedronai]

Accepted Compels are complications for which you are compensated (yay for alliteration).  They are essentially cost-neutral, or are supposed to be.

[Locnil]

Yes, I did get the reasoning behind the statement. I just think those who subscribe to it aren't thinking it through. As always, no offence intended.

Basically, when a compel comes up, you get two options.

Accept It
This is the scenario you are talking about it. You have to face the complication (bad) but you get a fate point(good). Basically, this option is cost-neutral.
Reject It
You now have to pay a fate point(bad). And... there's no upside, at least compared to if there was no compel in the first place.

See what I mean? When a compel comes up, at the very, absolute best it's as you describe - cost-neutral. At it's very worst, its an black hole for fate points, that can never be fully satisfied as long as the possibility of compels remain. Since most games will fall somewhere in the middle, the compels are most certainly not cost-neutral. The sole exception is if you're playing a game where compels never do any worse than just a minor slap on the wrist or even outright give you a benefit - in which case, should you really be getting fate points for them?

[Sanctaphrax]

Believe me, I've thought this through.

Part of the GM's job is to give Compels that are, overall, cost-neutral.

In some games (the majority, I think) that means giving out Compels that are pretty much never refused, which are each individually worth 1 FP. In others it might mean giving out a mix of soft and hard Compels, some of which might actually be refused, so that on average the soft Compels pay for the hard ones.

This is pretty much a tautology, really. The appropriate level of hardness for Compels is defined by the need to keep Compels from being a weakness. Therefore (non-debt) Compels are not and never will be a weakness.

[Tedronai]

As a player, I think the only times where I've ever refused a compel were also times when the GM refused to negotiate (at all) and thus potentially arrive at something mutually agreeable (as, by the rules, they are supposed to attempt).

[Lavecki121]

Yes, I did get the reasoning behind the statement. I just think those who subscribe to it aren't thinking it through. As always, no offence intended.

Basically, when a compel comes up, you get two options.

Accept It
This is the scenario you are talking about it. You have to face the complication (bad) but you get a fate point(good). Basically, this option is cost-neutral.
Reject It
You now have to pay a fate point(bad). And... there's no upside, at least compared to if there was no compel in the first place.

The "good" part of rejecting a compel is that you get to continue to do what you were planning on and dont have to take any negative consequences.

For instance: GM compels "Hot headed" To make you attack someone the group is negotiating with because he insulted you. Now you can accept that and go into combat or you can reject it because you want to maintain the conversation.

[Tedronai]

Or you can negotiate it to react in some other way representative of your 'Hot Headed' aspect, get the FP, delay or avoid combat, and keep everyone happy.
Maybe you get angry and start to take an even more hard-line approach to the negotiations.  Maybe you switch from persuasion techniques over to intimidation and demands.  Maybe you storm out in a huff (concede the conflict with all attendant effects).  Maybe you silently vow to do whatever you were going to do anyway, regardless of the results of the negotiations.  Maybe you end up insulting the other party and they demand further concessions to make up for the slight.
The possibilities go on and on.