One more bit on Thaumaturgy...

[Pauldk]

Okay... so I've been looking all over the forums here and various online resources and I am finding a lot of homebrew rules, but nothing that looks "official" on this:

After preparations for a Thaumaturgy Ritual are complete, how long does it take to add the power to the ritual? A lot of people suggest waiting until your Control is up to +5 so you can put one shift in per exchange... but how long does that take?

I *think* the closest thing I've found is the "Combat Thaumaturgy" section in Paranet Papers... where it is basically one combat exchange per exchange... so that would make it relative quick to bring many shifts to a ritual, one at a time...

So, the question: what's the "closest to official" answer about how long an exchange of bringing power to a ritual takes?

Thanks!!

[Taran]

I default to about 1 minute on the time chart(minimum). (for all the prep - including rituals that are below your lore. it's supposed to be a mini-scene, after all.)

After that, I let them cast it as a regular spell:  1 exchange each time they call up power and control it.

They can draw up as much power they like in a single 'round' but they have to control it.  So, for a 5 shift ritual, if they want to be safe and only do one shift of power/exchange, then it's going to take 5 exchanges(after prep).  Or they could do it all in one exchange, if they're under the gun.  The spell goes off immediately on the exchange that they control the last of the complexity. So you could, potentially, cast it in one round.

I didn't read the paranet papers but I remember someone mentioning the rules and I remember that casting a ritual in combat is fairly difficult (like, you can't dodge and stuff).   You'd know better since you have the book.

In any case, I remember liking what they had there.

[Haru]

"As long as it takes."

Fate is a narrative game, so time is a bit more fluid than in most other games. One exchange is the time it takes for everyone in a conflict to do one action. Whatever that action might be. Including gathering power for a spell.

If it's a fairly minor spell, that works quite well. But then again, a lot of the time when you are in a conflict, you don't need a minor spell. You need the big guns. And to power those in time, you need to take a risk.

Keep in mind that the control 5 thing for 1 shift of power is there to put the risk of fallout to 0, because you can't roll worse than -4, so 5-4 is still able to control that 1 shift. Usually, you want to do things faster than that, so you take a risk. Usually, a fairly mild one, though.

The more important question would be: does the spell fit into the scene? If it's a minor thing that you can just take your time with or do the next day or whatever, it doesn't need to be in the scene. You just deal with the opposition and try again, unopposed and probably even without a roll, since it isn't interesting if you can do the spell then.
Then the spell could be so big, that your group thinks it would take far too long to do it in a conflict, even if the number of shifts would fit. Maybe the spell is too delicate to do with that much distraction. Maybe the vibe of a conflict would disturb the spell. In that case, casting it in a conflict wouldn't make much sense either.

The thing is that preparation basically isn't possible during a conflict. It usually takes far longer than your average conflict to set up a decent thaumaturgic spell. However, if you've got everything you need, you can throw up a quick ward or whatever you might want to do. The idea is that you've prepared the spell to defeat the bad guys and then the bad guys show up and now you're in a hurry to cast the spell, before they can overwhelm you. And that's when powering up per exchange comes into play.

[Pauldk]

"As long as it takes."

Fate is a narrative game, so time is a bit more fluid than in most other games. One exchange is the time it takes for everyone in a conflict to do one action. Whatever that action might be. Including gathering power for a spell.

If it's a fairly minor spell, that works quite well. But then again, a lot of the time when you are in a conflict, you don't need a minor spell. You need the big guns. And to power those in time, you need to take a risk.

Keep in mind that the control 5 thing for 1 shift of power is there to put the risk of fallout to 0, because you can't roll worse than -4, so 5-4 is still able to control that 1 shift. Usually, you want to do things faster than that, so you take a risk. Usually, a fairly mild one, though.

The more important question would be: does the spell fit into the scene? If it's a minor thing that you can just take your time with or do the next day or whatever, it doesn't need to be in the scene. You just deal with the opposition and try again, unopposed and probably even without a roll, since it isn't interesting if you can do the spell then.
Then the spell could be so big, that your group thinks it would take far too long to do it in a conflict, even if the number of shifts would fit. Maybe the spell is too delicate to do with that much distraction. Maybe the vibe of a conflict would disturb the spell. In that case, casting it in a conflict wouldn't make much sense either.

The thing is that preparation basically isn't possible during a conflict. It usually takes far longer than your average conflict to set up a decent thaumaturgic spell. However, if you've got everything you need, you can throw up a quick ward or whatever you might want to do. The idea is that you've prepared the spell to defeat the bad guys and then the bad guys show up and now you're in a hurry to cast the spell, before they can overwhelm you. And that's when powering up per exchange comes into play.

Ah... okay, thanks!! I get it a bit better now. It's not exactly the case that you're assuming (because, i think, it's actually the GM that's doing things a bit strangely...)

I'm often told that, even after prep is complete a spell would "take too long to do in a day" to just do the exchanges to get the spell cast, because the spell was so complex (like 24 shifts). I think that's just... (wrong?) so I think that my confusion is lessening.

Thanks for the info!!!!

[Haru]

Well, if you make these big spells with 24+ shifts, after a while, you'll end up with aspects like "focused" and "really focused" and "really really focused", just to somehow make up the discrepancy in shifts. I'd much rather have one cool aspect that gives the spell a shape, a place in the story, that makes it memorable.

I'm not assuming anything (I assume). I was mainly trying to explain my take on things. I grant you, that sometimes gets away from me and turns into a ramble.

The point is, large numbers do nothing to make the spell more interesting. At the very least they are a hurdle, at worst, they keep the spell from getting off the ground in the first place. While all we really want to do is see what cool stuff the spell can do.

The important question is this: "What happens when the spell fails?"
If the answer is "well, nothing, really", then why bother rolling in the first place? When you do a tracking spell, it succeeds, because the interesting stuff happens after you found the target. If you don't find it, the story kind of grinds to a halt, or at least takes an uninteresting detour that can be avoided.
Unless, maybe, you don't have much time, in which case you might have to roll to see if you find the little girl before the ghoul eats her. Now there's something interesting, you need those dice to roll well, you can't just take your time. Now we're cooking.

Then there are special cases, where casting the spell isn't really interesting, but putting the spell together is. You need to get the right ingredients, the right symbolic link, etc. Once you've got those, the spell is easy, no roll necessary, but to get them is an adventure all by itself.

On the whole, it's a different mindset than most people are used to from other games. I personally love it, though I am occasionally still struggling to stay on top of it and not fall back into old habits.

See? I'm rambling again. Sorry about that.

[Pauldk]

Thanks for the feedback!!! This helps a lot. About assuming things... I was just trying to be clear. I'm not the King of Clear lately.

[Mr. Death]

Yeah, one turn in Thaum as one turn in combat has worked for me. I had the climax of two campaigns center around one character casting a huge ritual (30+ shifts) during a fight while the rest of the party defended them and took on other objectives. That way, it tends to encourage more risks and is more dramatic.

And remember, that's the key to DFRPG -- you're telling a story more than you're doing the nuts and bolts. A turn isn't 6.3 seconds, it's whatever works for the scenario.

[Lonelylurker]

Even if you don't let Thaumaturgy happen in combat as a general rule I'd probably make an exception for a simple 'magic circle' wards. There's many examples of Harry making a functional Circle in 'combat time'. In Dead Beat he even teaches Butters to do it 'under fire'.

He also mentions that *anyone* can make a simple Circle, so you probably shouldn't need Thaumaturgy as long as you have Lore.

[Taran]

Even if you don't let Thaumaturgy happen in combat as a general rule I'd probably make an exception for a simple 'magic circle' wards. There's many examples of Harry making a functional Circle in 'combat time'. In Dead Beat he even teaches Butters to do it 'under fire'.

He also mentions that *anyone* can make a simple Circle, so you probably shouldn't need Thaumaturgy as long as you have Lore.

I might just call that a block using conviction and have it modified by Lore.

[dragoonbuster]

I might just call that a block using conviction and have it modified by Lore.

Harry is also clear that a non-magical mortal creating a circle must invest blood to make it work. So you might have to take a Mild Consequence to set one up if you don't have magic casting abilities, but that's a GM call. A bite to the spot between your thumb and forefinger may not be bad enough to qualify as a Mild Consequence.

[Haru]

I think that's just flavor. It's just a drop of blood that's needed as a conduit between you and the circle. Kind of like you're pushing your life energy into it to power it up. Wizards can control theirs a lot better than regular folk, so they don't need blood to do it. They can, though, to make it easier for them.

In any case, I don't think a consequence is necessary.

[Mr. Death]

I think that's just flavor. It's just a drop of blood that's needed as a conduit between you and the circle. Kind of like you're pushing your life energy into it to power it up. Wizards can control theirs a lot better than regular folk, so they don't need blood to do it. They can, though, to make it easier for them.

In any case, I don't think a consequence is necessary.

Probably just a maneuver -- in Butters' case, the first time he did it, it was maneuver --> tagged to make circle.

The second time, the cut was still fresh enough that the GM let him spend a fate point to invoke it again.

[Haru]

I don't even think you'd need a maneuver for this. If you know how to draw a circle, it's not like you need an art degree to do it.

The only interesting part would be to roll and see if you are aware that you need one or if you can draw it quick enough. Butters drawing a circle to make the GPS work, for example, wouldn't need a roll at all.

[PirateJack]

I'd say that a magic circle would be a Conviction Declaration or a Fate Point spent. It'd give you an aspect you could invoke for effect to just nullify certain creatures/spells/etc.

[Taran]

I suppose it could be a maneuver that you invoke but I don't see why it can't be a block.  Especially if it's preventing attacks or other actions.

For the gps, I'd just have the player make a single roll to see if it works.  Maybe additional rolls if they are under pressure to maintain it.  Like opposed by an enemy trying to ruin it.  Mostly cause that would make a fun conflict.