Thaumaturgic blocks

[Dr.FunLove]

@Sanctaphrax
Balanced...to whom?

[Sanctaphrax]

Not sure I understand your question. What are you getting at?

(My answer would be "people who play DFRPG" but somehow I don't think that's what you mean.)

[Haru]

I'm just confused over the distinction.

My first example was perfectly legit for thaumaturgy.  It was a long-term block against movement.

Why is a long-term block against attacks not ?

I'm with Tedronai here, I would not do this as a block but a taken out result. You are basically putting a lasting effect on the target, blocks only work so far for that. There is a reason why you want to put a block on the target, you probably want to keep him from doing something, or you want to leave him to die. Both of the times, take him out and you can describe how that happens. It's much cleaner than doing it with a block.

In fact, I'm glad Core got rid of blocks altogether.

[Dr.FunLove]

@Sacntaphrax
Indeed you're correct. That was meant "from whom's perspective". Yours? Mine? Is there some universal agreement on this matter? Is there going to be? As you point out, the RAW can be vague and open to interpretation, so we can't exactly use that as the gospel here.

I'm going to stop right there because I feel like this is headed into rocky shoals. Thanks for sharing though!

@Haru
Have you read Core? I had heard from somewhere, probably one of the Core re-write threads, that Aspects are/can be utilized more heavily in areas such as these. Also too I believe they added a mechanic for more flexible use of Aspects...something about Conditions or some such? Care to weigh in?

[Haru]

@Haru
Have you read Core? I had heard from somewhere, probably one of the Core re-write threads, that Aspects are/can be utilized more heavily in areas such as these. Also too I believe they added a mechanic for more flexible use of Aspects...something about Conditions or some such? Care to weigh in?

That's done by what is called "active opposition". It is sort of like a ramped up defense roll. You can do "Create Advantage" actions in Core, sort of what is now called a maneuver. You either create an aspect by that or get a free invoke on an existing aspect.
Now let's say you run away from someone and in the process you create the aspect "blocked door". You choose to make that an obstacle that your pursuer has to overcome by the means of an overcome action. The GM decides on the difficulty of that overcome roll. That's passive opposition. As long as your pursuer does not beat the obstacle with a reasonable skill (might to push open the door, for example), he can not follow you.

Now the same situation, but you pass one of your allies who is laying down cover fire by creating an advantage by the same name. The aspect now justifies him to roll active opposition each time someone tries to overcome the aspect with an overcome action. Instead of a fixed difficulty, the character can roll his shooting skill to see if he can keep the pursuers away. Since it is a roll, he is also allowed to invoke aspects on it to increase it.

Now you can do something similar for a magic shield. You use your magic skill to create the advantage "magic shield", or you decide beforehand, that your high concept of "wizard private eye" is enough of a justification, and then you can use your magic skill to defend against physical attacks. I like the first option better, because it coincides with Harry's "I readied my shield bracelet" mantra at the beginning of so many conflicts.

The justifying advantage can be overcome itself. Like Mavra did with the flamethrowers, for example. And once the aspect is gone, you can no longer use it to justify your active opposition, unless you can reestablish it again.

One of the authors did a pretty long piece on that, if you are interested:
http://www.faterpg.com/2013/richards-guide-to-blocks-and-obstacles-in-fate-core/#more-137

[Dr.FunLove]

@Haru
Huh...that's very interesting. Could these mechanics be incorporated into the current state of the game easily? It seems like it could resolve a lot of things in discussion here.

[Haru]

Pretty sure, yes. I already did that as a one time experiment, even before Core came out, because the player and I both disliked the way blocks worked. In Shadowrun, there is the concept of sustained spells, where you can concentrate on prolonging a spell but receive a penalty of -2 to all actions as long as you keep the spell up. We did that with a shield spell and that spell allowed him to roll discipline for defense. I would no longer include the penalty, but keep the rest as is.

In general, switching from the trappings of DF to the 4 actions of Core can be done without a fuss. You wouldn't need to change anything else, I think.

[Dr.FunLove]

@Haru
I'll have to look into that in some more depth. I think that is one change that has enough quality of life merit to it to warrant a bit of conversion. Thanks for the info!

[Sanctaphrax]

@Sacntaphrax
Indeed you're correct. That was meant "from whom's perspective". Yours? Mine? Is there some universal agreement on this matter?

On this particular issue I think agreement is probably pretty universal. Just about everyone calls shenanigans when someone uses a ritual to give themself a 16-shift shield for the rest of their life.

This issue is a bit unusual, though. Most balance questions are more debatable.

Balance can to a certain extent be demonstrated objectively through math, but there's still plenty of room for debate most of the time. It's like a statistical variable...there's a mean, but each measurement will differ from the mean somewhat. If you want to know the true shape of the distribution, you should take multiple measurements and you should ensure that each measurement is as accurate as possible.

I'm with Tedronai here, I would not do this as a block but a taken out result. You are basically putting a lasting effect on the target, blocks only work so far for that. There is a reason why you want to put a block on the target, you probably want to keep him from doing something, or you want to leave him to die. Both of the times, take him out and you can describe how that happens. It's much cleaner than doing it with a block.

In fact, I'm glad Core got rid of blocks altogether.

This isn't necessarily a lasting effect. It could be broken in a couple of minutes, if someone really strong or magically capable comes around.

And I was really unimpressed with what Core did with blocks.

[Tedronai]

This isn't necessarily a lasting effect. It could be broken in a couple of minutes, if someone really strong or magically capable comes around.

Truths are truths until something changes them; "unless someone comes to save you" isn't at all an unreasonable caveat to apply to a Taken-Out result.

[Sanctaphrax]

Okay. Now suppose the strong/magical person is the target. The effect could be 100% successful and yet very temporary.

[Haru]

This isn't necessarily a lasting effect. It could be broken in a couple of minutes, if someone really strong or magically capable comes around.

And if you are left to die as a taken out result, someone could come around and rescue you still. But I would incorporate that into the taken out result. Or better yet: make it a concession. Yes, the guy is rescued, but too late to get in the way of your most recent plan. I feel that's a much more elegant way to handle this. You are trying to block this guy for a reason, so cut out the middle man and get to the reason.

And I was really unimpressed with what Core did with blocks.

I never liked how they worked, so I am really glad about the change. But that's personal preference, I guess.

[Sanctaphrax]

And if you are left to die as a taken out result, someone could come around and rescue you still. But I would incorporate that into the taken out result. Or better yet: make it a concession. Yes, the guy is rescued, but too late to get in the way of your most recent plan. I feel that's a much more elegant way to handle this. You are trying to block this guy for a reason, so cut out the middle man and get to the reason.

You can't concede in response to being taken out, so it's not a concession.

And being rescued by someone else is only a valid way to get out of a take-out effect if the take-out-er says it is. We know what it takes to rescue someone from a block, because we have numbers for that. If this were a take-out, we would not know anything of the sort.

Plus, what I said to Tedronai.

I know you can do this sort of thing with attacks and take-out negotiation, but trying to force an effect designed as a block into the mold of an attack is anything but elegant. You should try to avoid that kind of round-peg nonsense.

[Tedronai]

It never should have been 'designed' as a block in the first place.
The fact that it's narrated as preventing action rather than inflicting harm has no bearing on the fact that the intended result is to remove a character from the conflict.  That is the effect of a Taken-Out result.

This is the same concept that models the summoning of Chauncy based on the difficulty to acquire the desired information rather than the difficulty to call forth, contain, and subsequently negotiate with the demon.

[Taran]

I don't see how preventing someone from movement is a take-out result. 

They can still attack/defend/ call for reinforcements etc...

And it's purpose might not be to remove them from a conflict, it might be to FORCE them into a conflict.
The only thing they CAN'T do is run away.  Which would be the point of doing a thaumaturgic "lock-down" on a target.

And if you're going to spend all that time doing it with thaumaturgy, then you might not be near the target...so then you have to get to them and they can take that time to maneuver (every exchange) to build up enough tags to escape. 

The exciting build up to the fight, then is "can we get to him before he escapes?"  The "getting there" might end up more exciting than the fight itself.

Yeah...definitely not a take out result in my mind.

Anyways, that particular spell aside, are you saying thaumatury can't do blocks then?  only wards?