Dresden Combat Example

[rientelfon]

Hey everyone,

So, I hosted my second session for the Dresden RPG and in this one there were several fight scenes which involves a Wizard, Ghoul, Winter Knight, Pure Mortal, and an Emissary.

I would like some clarification to understand if I handled these properly because I was shocked the way things turned out. Provided below is the combat that I am seeking clarification.

Example #1
Wizard (referred to from here on out as Wiz) vs. Winter Knight (referred to from here on out as WK)

Builds for the Characters:
Wiz - Evocation (Fire +1 Control) (-3); Thaumaturgy (-3); The Sight (-1); Soulgaze (-1), Wizard's Constitution (-0) - Total Refresh -7
WK - Inhuman Toughness/Speed/Strength (-6); Master Swordsman Stunt (-1); Unseelie Magic (-4); Marked by Power (-1); Catch (Cold Iron) (+2);  Trained to Ignore Lesser Pain Stunt (-1) - Total Refresh - 11

The Wiz was asleep in their apartment (and having no wards or threshold), the WK slipped in and got a surprise attack against the Wiz doing 11 stress right off the bat which I ruled he suffered a severe consequence of "Broken Jaw" and a minor consequence of "Black Eye".

The Wiz threw an Air spell to create a powerful wind barrier holding back the WK against the wall using 5 Shifts (Conviction 5, Discipline 4) and rolled a Great (+4) on his control, he took the backlash and totaling 2 Mental Stress. This put I ruled a Maneuver and gave him the Aspect of "Pinned Against Wall".

The WK rolled a Might check and I factored in his Inhuman Strength and resulted in a Fantastic (+6), which I allowed to negate the maneuver and that was his turn for the round.

The Wiz threw a Fireball Spell at the WK this time since he saw that the WK was not slowing down and put another 5 Shifts (Conviction 5, Discipline 4+1) and rolled a Fantastic (+6). The WK rolled his Athletics with an Average (+1). I ruled that the WK took 10 Shifts of Physical Stress, which had him suffer a Sever Consequence of "On Fire" and with his Stunt and Inhuman Toughness shrugged off the rest of the 4 remaining shifts.

The WK used his Sponsored Magic to kill the fire and that ended his turn.

The Wiz threw another Air Spell with 5 Shifts (Conviction 5, Discipline 4) and rolled an Epic (+7). The WK rolled his Athletics and got a Fair (+2). I ruled that the WK took 10 shifts of damage and decided that the WK was not going to win, so he dropped falling unconscious.

End Example #1

Damage Tally:
Wiz - 3 Physical Stress, 3 Mental Stress; 1 Minor Consequence "Black Eye"; 1 Severe Consequence "Broken Jaw"
WK - 6 Physical Stress; 1 Severe Consequence "3rd Degree Burns"

It just seems that the WK should have been able to handle the Wizard on some level, but maybe I am misunderstanding Refresh values.

Thanks in advance 

[rientelfon]

After reading through the rules and such again, I suppose I could have handled things slightly different for the WK that definitely would have provided some more danger.

The WK can defend against a Maneuver as free action, so the WK could have attacked after the Wiz's attempt at a maneuver.
As for the Fire Attack, I am not sure, but I probably could have said this did not apply for his Catch, and with his Stunt + Inhuman Toughness, he would have just suffered 6 Physical Stress and no consequences, which would have allowed another attack against the Wiz.

So, all in all 2 more attacks would have probably been enough to take the Wiz down considering the surprise attack already suffered.

[Haru]

One important thing to remember: Characters don't have to take consequences. You say a number of times "I ruled that he takes a consequence", but that's for the player to decide. If you take 10 shifts of stress in one hit and don't want to take a consequence, you are simply taken out. Taking consequences is a way to stay in conflict, but you can always just call it a day and be fresh for a new fight.

Another thing would be the setup. Why did the WK attack the Wizard? There might be some factors that could put the conflict in a different light and it could have been handled entirely different. For example, did the WK want to kill or abduct the wizard? In the former case, I would have probably fought as hard as I could in place of the wizard. But if he wants to abduct me, maybe present me to his Lady, hell, that could be an interesting complication, I'll just let it happen. Better yet, grant the player of the wizard a compel and do it without any roll at all.

One thing I see that seems entirely wrong:

The Wiz threw an Air spell to create a powerful wind barrier holding back the WK against the wall using 5 Shifts (Conviction 5, Discipline 4) and rolled a Great (+4) on his control, he took the backlash and totaling 2 Mental Stress. This put I ruled a Maneuver and gave him the Aspect of "Pinned Against Wall".

The WK rolled a Might check and I factored in his Inhuman Strength and resulted in a Fantastic (+6), which I allowed to negate the maneuver and that was his turn for the round.

You can always defend against an action targeted at you. So the might roll should have been the defense against the wind spell and the WK would have had his action left. Would have made all the difference, since from here on out the WK was in the defense.

Another thing: The way you describe it, a "powerful wind barrier", this sounds more like a block, not a maneuver. It can work as a maneuver, but still, the description suggests it's a block.

That would mean it's a 5 shift block either on the WK (which he could defend against) or on the wizard to help him defend against the WK.

Sever Consequence of "On Fire"

Doesn't work. A consequence is something lasting. It's what happens as an injury from the fire, it isn't the fire itself. As a severe consequence, you could have "third degree burns", but you are not "on fire" as a consequence. You could do a maneuver to create the "on fire" aspect on someone, but that's something else. Again, this cost the WK his action, which lead to his defeat.

So yes, the WK would have had a lot more chance, but he didn't get to take it.

[rientelfon]

Hey Haru,

Thanks for your analysis that confirms what I was suspecting as well. As for the "Wind Barrier" yeah, I was having trouble on deciding either Block or Maneuver myself since it could go either way.

You say a number of times "I ruled that he takes a consequence", but that's for the player to decide.

Sorry, I was a bit unclear there, he wanted to take the consequences, I just decided what they were.

Doesn't work. A consequence is something lasting. It's what happens as an injury from the fire, it isn't the fire itself. As a severe consequence, you could have "third degree burns", but you are not "on fire" as a consequence. You could do a maneuver to create the "on fire" aspect on someone, but that's something else. Again, this cost the WK his action, which lead to his defeat.

Yeah, I also realized my blunder there and that did cause him to lose his action.

Why did the WK attack the Wizard?

He was attacking him because he had discovered too much about the mystery and his plans were to actually just straight up kill him.

[Haru]

Sorry, I was a bit unclear there, he wanted to take the consequences, I just decided what they were.

Ah, well then. Just wanted to make sure. I've seen this confusion a lot of times, where people (GM and players alike) thought you need to take consequences.

He was attacking him because he had discovered too much about the mystery and his plans were to actually just straight up kill him.

At what part of the session/campaign was this? Seems like it could have been handled differently. Killing a character is the kindest thing you can do. Make him suffer instead. So for instance, the Winter Lady could be inclined to send her Knight in order to assist the wizard, but what he is actually doing is keeping an eye on him and steer him off course, if he gets too close.
Or better yet, turn it around and have the Winter Knight stir him in the completely wrong way, so the wizard now works towards the Winter Lady's goal while he thinks he is doing the opposite.

I was having trouble on deciding either Block or Maneuver myself since it could go either way.

Rule of thumb:
If it sets up an advantage, it's a maneuver.
If it hinders someone from doing something, it's a block.

[rientelfon]

Rule of thumb:
If it sets up an advantage, it's a maneuver.
If it hinders someone from doing something, it's a block.

Good advice, I think he was trying to pin him against the wall just to prevent him from attacking, so that would be a block.

At what part of the session/campaign was this? Seems like it could have been handled differently. Killing a character is the kindest thing you can do. Make him suffer instead. So for instance, the Winter Lady could be inclined to send her Knight in order to assist the wizard, but what he is actually doing is keeping an eye on him and steer him off course, if he gets too close.
Or better yet, turn it around and have the Winter Knight stir him in the completely wrong way, so the wizard now works towards the Winter Lady's goal while he thinks he is doing the opposite.

Very interesting, this is probably what I should have done upon reflection. The characters have discovered a plot by the Winter Court to seize power against the Summer Court and the Wizard has been investigating into how they are doing this. He has determined correctly how the balance has been tipped and was planning on setting things correctly, at least from what he figured was the way to solve the problem. The WK was unaware that his methods were not going to work, but he figured he knew too much to be left alive since this could easily ruin their plans.

[Amelia Crane]

That would mean it's a 5 shift block either on the WK (which he could defend against) or on the wizard to help him defend against the WK.

Actually, I don't believe there is any defense against a block roll.  The block is simply established at however many shifts it has.  Then, if the blocked character takes an action that is prevented by the block, they must roll more power than the block.  If they do, their action happens with whatever shifts bypass the block.  If they do not, their action is negated.  YS210.

[Haru]

Actually, I don't believe there is any defense against a block roll.  The block is simply established at however many shifts it has.  Then, if the blocked character takes an action that is prevented by the block, they must roll more power than the block. If they do, their action happens with whatever shifts bypass the block. If they do not, their action is negated.  YS210.

True, and that's how I handled it until we had the kerfuffle with Jeffrey and the block vs. block problem. I asked the question in the DFRPG G+ group and Fred Hicks answered, basically saying that assuming you don't get a defense roll when someone does something against you seems wrong.

So while you can't defend against a block roll someone does on themselves, you can defend against a block that someone does against you. At least that's how I'm going to play it from here on out.

Very interesting, this is probably what I should have done upon reflection. The characters have discovered a plot by the Winter Court to seize power against the Summer Court and the Wizard has been investigating into how they are doing this. He has determined correctly how the balance has been tipped and was planning on setting things correctly, at least from what he figured was the way to solve the problem. The WK was unaware that his methods were not going to work, but he figured he knew too much to be left alive since this could easily ruin their plans.

#12: Discount the 1st thing that comes to mind. And the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th – get the obvious out of the way. Surprise yourself.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5916970/the-22-rules-of-storytelling-according-to-pixar

[Sanctaphrax]

It just seems that the WK should have been able to handle the Wizard on some level, but maybe I am misunderstanding Refresh values.

Refresh values are often less important than skills and strategy. It looks like the Knight had low Athletics and couldn't be bothered to tag the consequences he inflicted, or even to attack the Wizard a second time. That's not how you win.

True, and that's how I handled it until we had the kerfuffle with Jeffrey and the block vs. block problem. I asked the question in the DFRPG G+ group and Fred Hicks answered, basically saying that assuming you don't get a defense roll when someone does something against you seems wrong.

So while you can't defend against a block roll someone does on themselves, you can defend against a block that someone does against you. At least that's how I'm going to play it from here on out.

I don't think that's the best idea. A wall of wind in front of you and a wall of wind pushing you don't need to be handled so differently. And even if you want to handle them differently, you shouldn't make the wall in front of you clearly superior. Shouldn't make grappling so much weaker either. Playing this by the book seems like a better plan to me.

Considering that you effectively defend against a block whenever you act against it, we can do without actual defense rolls for them.

[Haru]

Considering that you effectively defend against a block whenever you act against it, we can do without actual defense rolls for them.

Yes and no. When you get a defense against it, your next action is potentially free of the block and able to do its full potential effect. If the block always gets established, that's not the case. Keep in mind that just because you don't have a block, you can still defend yourself. But yes, it is highly murky at best.

The reasoning would simply be that, since the block is an action taken against you, you get to defend. Yes, it's virtually the same action, but that's not the standpoint Fate argues from. Intent plays a big role. And keeping someone from acting and stopping anyone from harming you is a big difference.

This is one of the many reasons I dislike blocks, they are both boring and don't really work too well. I'm glad Core got rid of them.

[Sanctaphrax]

I would argue that Fate cares remarkably little about that kind of intent, actually. A maneuver, an attack, and a block can all be exactly the same from the character's perspective. Meanwhile, two very different actions from the character's perspective can be identical from the game's perspective.

Take a straight punch to the nose and a turning kick to the thigh. Either can be a totally normal Fists attack, even though they're very different to the character. And either can be a maneuver or even a block, without the character doing anything differently.

Anyway, I've found that blocks work quite well. Really not fond of the Core approach to block-like actions.

Not sure why you'd care whether the action is "against you" or not. What difference does it make?

[Taran]

Yes and no. When you get a defense against it, your next action is potentially free of the block and able to do its full potential effect. If the block always gets established, that's not the case. Keep in mind that just because you don't have a block, you can still defend yourself. But yes, it is highly murky at best.

The reasoning would simply be that, since the block is an action taken against you, you get to defend. Yes, it's virtually the same action, but that's not the standpoint Fate argues from. Intent plays a big role. And keeping someone from acting and stopping anyone from harming you is a big difference.

This is one of the many reasons I dislike blocks, they are both boring and don't really work too well. I'm glad Core got rid of them.

If you could resist a block, it effectively gives you 3 chances to overcome them:

1. The defense roll
2.  The action used to overcome the block
3. Doing a different action

The down side to a block is your opponent can always choose to do something else.  Block against attacks? I'll move instead.  Block against movement ?  I'll put up my own block. Or attack. 

I don't find blocks boring at all.  I think they add a great level of strategy.  They are tricky to use but, if used well, they can be a powerful tool. 

[Haru]

Take a straight punch to the nose and a turning kick to the thigh. Either can be a totally normal Fists attack, even though they're very different to the character. And either can be a maneuver or even a block, without the character doing anything differently.

Exactly. In other games, you would have to say "I don't hit him, I push him over" or something along those lines to do something different mechanically. In Fate, the same action can be a different mechanic, depending on your intention. Do you want to hurt the other guy? Give yourself the upper hand? Keep him from doing something else? The intent gives you the action, not the action itself.

Not sure why you'd care whether the action is "against you" or not. What difference does it make?

That argument could be made for maneuvers as well. You can do a maneuver on yourself and nobody gets to defend against it, but if you do a maneuver on someone else they get to defend themselves. It seems reasonable to apply this to blocks.

I think aspects are more interesting than blocks, mainly because they can be both. I like the way of creating an aspect instead of setting up a block, that allows the creator to do an active opposition.

So for example, you want to hit the wizard in the mouth so he can't speak and therefore cast a spell. You do a maneuver to set up the aspect "hit in the mouth" on him, and after that you're allowed to defend against his spellcasting with your fists. Even if you are not the target of the spell. That is pretty close to how blocks work already, but I find this way to be a lot more interesting than a static block.

A block will just stop something from happening, which will then have caused both parties their action without anything really happening. An aspect pushes the action into a different direction, and an active opposition can have a number of different outcomes, depending on how good or bad everyone rolls.

[Taran]

I'd like to use the fight against Sokar as an example.  (Rising Tides PbP)

The Revenant put up a 10 shift block on Sokar which effectively derailed our attack strategy.

It forced two of us to maneuver and a third person to use a counter-spell (which almost never gets used btw).

I think that made for an interesting fight.  If he'd just put up a maneuver, it wouldn't have affected the fight as profoundly.  It may have derailed one of us, but not all of us.

Not to say that maneuvers can't do that but I'm just pointing out how a block can make a fight more interesting.

[Haru]

I'd like to use the fight against Sokar as an example.  (Rising Tides PbP)

The Revenant put up a 10 shift block on Sokar which effectively derailed our attack strategy.

It forced two of us to maneuver and a third person to use a counter-spell (which almost never gets used btw).

I think that made for an interesting fight.  If he'd just put up a maneuver, it wouldn't have affected the fight as profoundly.  It may have derailed one of us, but not all of us.

Not to say that maneuvers can't do that but I'm just pointing out how a block can make a fight more interesting.

Agreed, but in the other way to do this would have allowed him to just use the aspect he'd created as a justification to roll a defense with an effective skill level of 10.

Though maybe the trouble is more with offensive blocks than with defensive ones. Or at least my trouble. Maybe I'll need to sleep on it a bit more.