ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Nyogtha on April 02, 2009, 12:42:40 PM
-
First of all my first language is Farzi so forgive any bad english grammar.
Hi everyone, I am a avid reader of Jim Butchers work and I am also a extreme fan of his Wizard Novels, The Harry Dresden Files. I have been reading the posts on the Dresden RPG webpage with great interest, however the latest post about the Characters: Red Court Infected inflammed my opinoin somewhat. I have interesting approach to gaming in that I do NOT restrict character class's based on morality or if a character is "evil", in many many roleplayng games as soon as some one is evil then they are no longer a substantiated character and can not be portrayed. To make specific my reference, here is the passage to which I refer "if at any point the character kills another human and drinks its blood, she must immediately “upgrade” the character to a full Red Court Vampire. This invariably results in turning the character into an NPC, and an evil one at that". Why is it turned into a NPC? The first Red Court Vampire we encounter is in the first novel and she is emotionally upset and damaged just because Harry saw her true form, clearly they are not 2 dimensional characters, they have complex thought patterns, feelings and goals and WERE human once so they have a reference point so you CAN roleplay one. In the first time we run into a Vampire, its a Red Court Vampire in the first book Storm Front, Book one of the Harry Dresden Files. and of course Harry Biance are able to come to a detente, again indicating they are not 2-dimensional creatures, I like this qoute from the book "She (been refering to Bianaca) didnt move quick enough for me to miss seeing a tear streak down one cheek, Id made the vampire cry, Great I felt like a real superhero, Harry Dresden Breaker of Monsters Hearts.
In addition to this and with even more conviction about the ludicrous nature of this statement that vampires are npcs, is Harry's Brother Raith a FULL BLOWN white court vampire, who constantly helps harry out and also FEEDS his demion as well, again not a 2 dimensional badguy but a fully in depth character (see a novel focusing soloing on a Raith called "backup"). This brings me to what I see is the reason, the reason you cant play a vampire (red court or any court) is that they are Evil.....becuase its still the same person I see no GOOD reason at all for a player not been able to play a vampie, Because this defintion of evil is westernized and if I were to follow my own cultures definition of Evil (we do have Farzi Role play games btw) only devout holy men are allowed to cast magic (they would bind and entreat with Jinn who were also created by Allah) on behalf of muslim society and any practioner of magic that isnt a holy man would be totally evil, so from that point of view every character in the Dresden RPG is a NPC only. I am assured there might be a question of Power, but tbh clearly Vampies arent not more powerful then wizards, infact based on the novel it seems Wizards are more powerful then vampires.
So why are you making a decision in your game over what can be a NPC and what cant be a NPC ??? espicially as we can see that non human creatures like vampies (Raith from the white court and Bianca from the Red court) are clearly viable characters with real personalitys, feelings and thoughts that you can portyary. Now having had this discussion with people in conventions in the USA I am aware that many saw go play World of Darkness if oyu want monsters...the problem their is I despire the World of Darkness games and anyway 99% of the time I am running games for my extended gaming group. Again why not include character rules for all the wonderful things in teh Dresden universe, why restrict us? Please to be remembering this is not my first (or even second) language and our RPG group tends to want to follow canon of theese games at conventions so if you say in the book these can not be PC's then the same is applied to a whole convention resulting in no playment for me or my group.
Frustarted and Confused
Ahazil
PS-Please remember my english is not fantastically and I am not wanting a argument but a peaceful discussion.
PPS-I am aware after posting there is some posting invovled with allowing white court vampires, but my argument and consternation still stands why dont you allow Red Court? Black Court? Demon Worshippers? Bearers of the Black Denari? Why do you make this decision for your fan base on what PCs are allowed and what isnt? Red court vampres, Black Court Vampies, Necromancers all seemed viable players with real roles and personalitys (again I repeat myself but I am frustrated with the large number of RPGs that do this).
-
Ahazil,
First and foremost, you're reacting to a small part without seeing the entire whole. So keep that in mind: without the full picture, you're not seeing certain things which are true -- such as White Court Vampires, at least at some levels, being fully playable in the game. Thomas (at least in games of certain power levels) is definitely a playable PC!
Here's a short version of the answer: Ultimately this is not a question about MORALITY in the sense of GOOD vs. EVIL. It's a question about POWER vs. FREEDOM. In the DFRPG, the more powerful you are, the less freedom of will you have. This is canonically true in the novels, and doesn't just apply to the bad guys! Angels have a lot of power, but no freedom. Well-intentioned folks like the Summer Lady, Lily, have a lot of power, but no freedom.
In the stuff we write in the game, we sum up the effect of this as: "Monsters have Power; Mortals have Free Will". So when we say that a Red Court Vampire becomes an NPC when its powers are fully manifested, we're not saying that it's because they're evil. It's because they've manifested so much power (supernatural or natural) that they've lost their freedom of will -- the essential thing that makes a player character.
From a system standpoint this is a simple case of saying "if you don't have the points to take the powers, and you buy the powers anyway, you stop being a PC". The fact that this is sympatico with the notion of POWER vs. FREE WILL from the novels is an extra benefit for us, and ties the system together with the story, which we like.
That's not to say there aren't elements of morality that are in the books, baked right in. Breaking the Laws of Magic -- which has SOME elements of morality in it -- does actually mentally corrupt someone, just the way an increase in power can. So we've got that baked into the system.
But there's no baked-in specific-religion morality in the game. If anything, the game is highly friendly to the perspectives of all religions.
If that's not your cup of tea, I can understand that, but it's not out of line with the books at all.
-
Allow me to make most certain that the game is too my endearing (is that what "your cup of tea means?"), is it then possible within this sytem to have the points to pay for a Red Court Vampire's powers and thus retain your free will? I am not understanding this point prehaps my inability to understand english properly is halting me, can you please explain this concept of losing ones will when one gets too powerful I read the books in english and I didnt see this as been focused to havng power but as a effect of owning certain powerful skills, one for example could be a awesome power and have free willl or one could be like a Denari and be awesome power without free will. this is to be explaining thank you.
-
"not your cup of tea" = "not to your taste"
It's as simple as this: powers cost Refresh points, and for most Refresh budgets, full Red Court Vampire is too expensive. When you have zero or negative refresh points left, you're an NPC.
-
Forgive the double post, but I feel somthing must explained about how my culture views a work of art like the Dresden game, it is a "spirtual thing" and its hard to explain in english but the best word I can find is Sacred but its not actually holy...The words of a highly vauled witer like the writers of this game are taken as TRUTH for the story and tale that must be imparted, as theese thigns like vampires are inteillgent beings that I would want to be able to portray just as much as the mages and so is so we can experince and inlovle ourself in the telling of the WHOLE story, its very important for the players to be able to play these roles and for US to be true to the TRUTHS of the authors, becuase the way my people have handed down experiences even before Mohammed was thourgh story telling and acting the stories which is VERY VERY like roleplaying games and so you understand why I am so feeling with your game as its a important thing for me and how I view my world through my upbringing.
-
"not your cup of tea" = "not to your taste"
It's as simple as this: powers cost Refresh points, and for most Refresh budgets, full Red Court Vampire is too expensive. When you have zero or negative refresh points left, you're an NPC.
I think I understand, these refersh points are important in determination of free will, I am not angering you am I with my questions? forgiveness if I am.
-
Nope, no anger at all. :)
Yeah -- basically we made the decision to give the system statistic of Refresh an "in-character" equivalence in the form of free will. Helps tie the system together with the theme. It's not *perfect*, but no game is, and this hits a lot of what we want to see in how the game plays out.
-
Interesting. One important truth about Thomas and Bianca and their respective Courts is that those two are unusual among vampires. Most are effectively enslaved to their hungers, which motivates their every action. As a result, they have practically no free will and are thus not PC material (given that most players would wish to play characters that would ALLOW them to make decisions). But with enough will (refresh points in the RPG), those particular vampires are able to move beyond the stereotype of the hunger-driven vampire. That's what makes them highly unusual.
-
I looked up a word I hope its right, Thematically? Themitcally speaking if you lose your refersh points the supernaural power (in the in game terms) you have aquired overwhelms you and makes you adhere to a "archtype" (looked up that word too) and you no longer have a choice but must play out that archtype that the supernatural power you have absconded with gave you?
-
Personally I don't think that Bianca's tear is any evidence of free will on her part. It's evidence that she has feelings which can get hurt -- but that's not an indication of free will (nor is it an indication of a moral stance -- even villains can have emotions).
She's got a ton of power, and basically no choice about whether or not to follow her monstrous inclinations.
-
I looked up a word I hope its right, Thematically? Themitcally speaking if you lose your refersh points the supernaural power (in the in game terms) you have aquired overwhelms you and makes you adhere to a "archtype" (looked up that word too) and you no longer have a choice but must play out that archtype that the supernatural power you have absconded with gave you?
Yes! That's *perfect*. You've got it absolutely right.
-
Understanding is very pleasing I thank you for enlightnement in this and I wish to thank you deeply I understand how the spirtual side of your rules work with the spirtual side of the game, it is pleaseing :), so you would see Bianca while she has feelings cant help but be a hungerer for monstrosities? Would you think she aware of her lack of choice or is that somthing she does not know?
-
Understanding is very pleasing I thank you for enlightnement in this and I wish to thank you deeply I understand how the spirtual side of your rules work with the spirtual side of the game, it is pleaseing :), so you would see Bianca while she has feelings cant help but be a hungerer for monstrosities? Would you think she aware of her lack of choice or is that somthing she does not know?
Hard to say. At that point it might just not enter into the possibility of thought. Does Queen Mab have an idea that she can't help but be Queen Mab? Probably not: she is who she is, so fully and innately, that being otherwise just doesn't manifest as an option.
But the closer someone is to "humanity", maybe the more evident the strictures of nature are. But that's not something I'd want to paint with a broad brush -- I'd prefer that to be a decision about how a character's lack of free will manifests on a character-by-character basis.
-
Well-intentioned folks like the Summer Lady, Lily, have a lot of power, but no freedom.
I can see not wanting to allow someone to play the Summer Lady from a gaming perspective, and perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen anything in the books to indicate that Lily is more constrained by her power or nature then Fix is, and the Summer Knight is playable.
The only time where Fix acted and Lily didn't that I can think of is when she didn't attack Winter's forces in Proven Guilty when Fix did, and the explanation was that if she acted it would be a major provocation. I interpreted that as having the ability to attack, but not being willing to accept the consequences, i.e. making a choice.
It seems like Eldest Brother Gruff would be a good example of someone unable to make a choice. He didn't want to attack Dresden, but was unable to do anything else until he was presented with a situation which reordered his priorities.
Perhaps I'm splitting hairs.
-
It's a broadsword more than a scalpel when it comes to applying the perspective.
Lily has a LOT of stuff she CAN'T do, because she's now constrained by the pacts of Summer.
As a Summer Knight, Fix is actually still mortal, and technically retains some freedom of choice. There being SOME free will available to the Knights is part of the point of why they exist -- it enables them to act OUTSIDE their nature, in the Courts' interests, in theory.
-
It's a broadsword more than a scalpel when it comes to applying the perspective.
Lily has a LOT of stuff she CAN'T do, because she's now constrained by the pacts of Summer.
As a Summer Knight, Fix is actually still mortal, and technically retains some freedom of choice. There being SOME free will available to the Knights is part of the point of why they exist -- it enables them to act OUTSIDE their nature, in the Courts' interests, in theory.
Technically speaking though, isn't Lily still Mortal as well? I seem to recall that she didn't choose to be fae, but became Summer Lady anyways due to being Summer Knight at the time.
Again, I'm not arguing that Summer Lady should be a playable character, just drawing on the books.
She gave Dresden Summer Fire to use in Winter's territory, summoned Maeve when she couldn't directly help Harry; she works hard to get around the rules she's operating under. Fix doesn't seem to be any less constrained. He had to threaten Harry in Small Favor in order to warn him. Now, at least one Summer minion thought that Summer's interests were not being well served(Gruff), and Fix was still pretty heavily bound, so his 'mortal' aspect doesn't seem to give him much more breathing room than Lily has.
-
Based on my conversations with Jim, Lily becoming the Summer Lady was essentially the Choice, made in favor of fae -- just as Fix's assuming the Summer Knight mantle was a confirmation of mortality.
-
Based on my conversations with Jim, Lily becoming the Summer Lady was essentially the Choice, made in favor of fae -- just as Fix's assuming the Summer Knight mantle was a confirmation of mortality.
Boo, pulling out the trump card 'I have a personal relationship with the author' ... name dropping is so 2008
jk ;)
-
I just wanted to jump in here for a minute. The way I understand is based on the
The Dresden Files. So the characters are described as the are in the books.
This RPG is also going to be a companion guide( if that is what it is called)
to the books. That is why I want the game.
Once you buy the game I am sure you will be able to play the game the way you
want to.
-
I just wanted to jump in here for a minute. The way I understand is based on the
The Dresden Files. So the characters are described as the are in the books.
This RPG is also going to be a companion guide( if that is what it is called)
to the books. That is why I want the game.
Once you buy the game I am sure you will be able to play the game the way you
want to.
I know, I was just pointing out something that might not be in line with the books(obviously Mr Butcher has the final say, since it's his stuff). As I've said multiple times, I don't think Summer Lady should be a player character, at least under most circumstances. I don't think the President of the United States would be a good player character either.
I'm not of the opinion that the RPG should have to be 100% in line with the books. I mean, if it is and it all works optimally that's bonus, but most books have to be changed to turn them into decent movies(or TV shows), and RPGs have different needs then books do.
-
Boo, pulling out the trump card 'I have a personal relationship with the author' ... name dropping is so 2008
jk ;)
*squinteye* We don't much cotton to not respectin' tradition in these here parts. *spits in spitoon* Even when the tradition ain't more'n a year old. *squints more*
-
I know, I was just pointing out something that might not be in line with the books(obviously Mr Butcher has the final say, since it's his stuff). As I've said multiple times, I don't think Summer Lady should be a player character, at least under most circumstances. I don't think the President of the United States would be a good player character either.
I'm not of the opinion that the RPG should have to be 100% in line with the books. I mean, if it is and it all works optimally that's bonus, but most books have to be changed to turn them into decent movies(or TV shows), and RPGs have different needs then books do.
Yep. We actually don't disagree on that front. We're just looking to do a "best fit" with the books when possible.
-
I'm not sure that I have a whole lot to add to this topic, except that I think it's a really important one for understanding how the game interacts with the setting.
The whole power versus freedom thing has already been brought up. One aspect of that which drives that home for me is that supernatural power in the Dresdenverse makes one less human. Freedom to choose seems to be tightly tied together with the human condition, while supernatural beings tend to fall into specific patterns. Once the supernatural overcomes the human, an individual falls into those patterns as well.
This is why a Red Court vampire isn't a good PC, but an infected could be. When the infected gives in and drinks blood, it isn't that the act is evil. It's that the act gives into the supernatural side of the being, and it takes over. So you get characters like Bianca who are totally bound by their nature but retain just enough humanity to regret that they can't do anything about it.
-
I think it all depends on the players in the end. If a person wanted to run a story with a rainbow of playable vampire PCs, then they could. The book is just saying that to their knowledge and their playtesting, this is the optimal way they've found to play the game. Not necessarily the only way. So, it doesn't mean you can't tinker with it in your game to do things your way if it'll result in a more enjoyable game to your personal preference. The book won't emit an electric shock if you try to do things differently. At least I hope not ....
*eyes her bookshelf warily*
-
The OP seems to be of the opinion that house rules are an insult to the author.
-
Nevermind me, then. I prefer not to understand things. It's not confusion, just abstract interpretation. ;)
-
I'm not sure that I have a whole lot to add to this topic, except that I think it's a really important one for understanding how the game interacts with the setting.
The whole power versus freedom thing has already been brought up. One aspect of that which drives that home for me is that supernatural power in the Dresdenverse makes one less human. Freedom to choose seems to be tightly tied together with the human condition, while supernatural beings tend to fall into specific patterns. Once the supernatural overcomes the human, an individual falls into those patterns as well.
This is why a Red Court vampire isn't a good PC, but an infected could be. When the infected gives in and drinks blood, it isn't that the act is evil. It's that the act gives into the supernatural side of the being, and it takes over. So you get characters like Bianca who are totally bound by their nature but retain just enough humanity to regret that they can't do anything about it.
Yep! You're right on target, there.
-
Now how would the whole Power vs Freedom concept take into account something(?) like a Scion? If they're already half-human, and half-whatever; is there really a chance of them embracing their instincts and loosing their free will?
-
Now how would the whole Power vs Freedom concept take into account something(?) like a Scion? If they're already half-human, and half-whatever; is there really a chance of them embracing their instincts and loosing their free will?
I don't see any incompatibility there (even a pure human can take on so much that they become monstrous, a slave to their nature -- I tend to regard Marcone as playing pretty close to that threshold). But it sounds like you do see an incompatibility. What is it?
-
I tend to regard Marcone as playing pretty close to that threshold.
I can't see Marcone as having a positive refresh. Especially with his soul gaze describing his personality as being like that of a tiger. That sounds like someone controlled by their own nature to me.
-
I see scions as being much like changelings. The more they embrace the Other, and the more power that gives them, the less freedom they have and more they are forced to act according to the nature of their Other. Yes, I have a character idea based around that.
-
Now, I don't know the rules for Spirit of the Century, so lacking that as a background I might be a little confused, but here's my problem: It seems to me that so long as a wizard does not enter into pacts (such as swearing on his power), it's entirely possible for him (or her) to achieve quite a lot of power and retain free will. Yet from what I've read, as your PC wizard gains power he will eventually lose free will. That doesn't quite make sense to me; a wizard, constantly practicing his art and performing it in combat will keep on getting better. Sure, he might become paranoid and jaded, but I don't see how that will actually override his capability to make decisions.
I understand that creatures like vampires and the Fair Folk are "slaves to their nature", but I think wizards and practitioners aren't comparable if they don't use black magic or enter into demonic pacts and the like. So maybe I could get a bit of clarification?
-
I can't see Marcone as having a positive refresh. Especially with his soul gaze describing his personality as being like that of a tiger. That sounds like someone controlled by their own nature to me.
Yeah, he's close to the edge. At some refresh levels, I don't think he's doable -- look at his power base and knife tricks alone! -- but I could see him as MAYBE just being this side of having free will in a game with a higher general power level..
-
I understand that creatures like vampires and the Fair Folk are "slaves to their nature", but I think wizards and practitioners aren't comparable if they don't use black magic or enter into demonic pacts and the like. So maybe I could get a bit of clarification?
Mechanically, it works like this:
Characters have a pool of points, called fate points. Each session it begins filled to a certain point. This point is called your refresh. So if your refresh is 5, your fate point total begins at 5 each session. Abilities beyond the norm are purchased as Stunts. Stunts reduce your refresh. Things like magical power, super speed, and the like come as Stunts.
Here comes on the scene Aspects. These are things about your character that are both narratively and mechanically important to the game, with both an up side and a down side. So an Aspect, "Always polite to women," might be possible. You can use a fate point with such an Aspect to add to a roll. Let's say you're convincing a woman to let you past security. You spend a fate point and justify the bonus you get by saying that she's impressed by how polite you are and thinks you are trustworthy.
Remember the bit about a bad part? Well, those are called compels. The person running the game (or even you) can force you to act differently by compelling an Aspect. These complicate your life. You might be about to do something and the person running the game might point out that doing that would be really rude to the woman you're talking to. You can then either accept a fate point and act accordingly or spend a fate point and do whatever you want.
This is where freedom comes in. The higher your refresh, the more fate points you're likely to have. The more fate points you have, the more compels you can resist. The more compels you can resist, the more you can do whatever you'd like.
Since Stunts -- from which magical power is derived -- reduce your refresh, they cause you to need to give in to more compels. This reduces your freedom of choice somewhat, therefore magic stuff reduces your freedom of choice.
Remember all those times where Harry can't use technology or the like? Those are compels against some applicable Aspect in game terms. You know how he is chivalrous to a fault? Likewise, a compel. In the thinking of FATE, that is a decrease in free will.
Before you get worried that you're going to be forced to do things you don't want to, that isn't how things work. You choose your own Aspects. You choose exactly how successful compels affect your behaviour. By the wording of an Aspect and how you choose to react to it, you're choosing what problems you'd like your character to face. Characters not facing problems is boring.
In terms of the books, it's not exactly the same. Harry doesn't lack free will because he can use magic. He is, however, pushed into a variety of situations because he's a wizard. He lives in "interesting times," as it were. Normal folks around him lack quite that weirdness magnet thing going on in his life.
So it's not that wizards lack all free will. It's that wizards live complicated lives. The more powerful they are, the more complicated their lives get. Real ass kickers are ruled by their passions, chased by their pasts, and bound to make dreadful decisions.
-
Thanks TheMouse, that really helped me out. It seems a little odd to me though; let's use your example aspect, "always polite to women". Why would a mortal with stunts such as magic be more likely to give in to this aspect than a mortal without stunts? Or is this a game mechanic which is entirely abstract and not really supposed to be grounded in reality?
Still, my worries are quite assuaged, as the system seems to be simply encouraging acting in-character rather than limiting your options. I think I'll have to go read the rules system now...
-
You're welcome.
The idea is that to some degree, all supernatural power makes folks a little less human. Humans have free will to make up their minds on any score. Things that are less human have less free will and are more likely to be bound by their own nature.
This shows in the books, too. Who is more likely to be ruled by some unreasoning aspect of their nature, Morgan or Murphy? Clearly Morgan is influenced by what in game terms would be compels against his Aspects. Sure, Murph does some unreasonable things, but it's not this constant drive like Morgan.
Even moreso this is clear with actually inhuman beings. Various sidhe pretty much spend the whole time being very much themselves, bound by faerie rules. Red Court vampires are ruled by their vicious nature. In game terms, these beings have negative refresh, so they would begin each session with no fate points and would thus be totally unable to resist a compel. Even worse, those with actual negative refresh rates have to give in to multiple compels before they begin to earn fate points for it. They have to go through a lot before they get any free will in regards to the core bits of their nature.
The fun part about all this is that you get to be sure that the Aspects you pick for your character will come up like this. To a very real degree you get to choose what the game is about right there during character generation. Want the game to focus on trying to keep your life as a wizard apart from your family life? Choose an Aspect like, "I need to keep this secret from my family." You've just made sure that your family will come into your stories, and you've made sure that you can always spend fate points to make you good in your role in those stories.
-
Okay, so, let me see if I understand how that would work. Let's say you've got a Red Court Vampire with an Aspect like "Uncontrolled Red Court Vassal." To him, I suppose Fate Points represent whatever magic he gains from drinking mortal blood. So, when he has no Fate Points, he can't resist any compels against that Aspect, such as the desire to drink blood. Once he's been compelled enough times to gain an actual Fate Point, he can then use that Fate Point to resist the next Compel to drink blood. Logically, a GM would want their Red Court NPCs to be well fed.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but a person's Refresh rate will only bring them back up to that many Fate Points if they have fewer than their Refresh. If they have more Fate Points than their Refresh Rate, nothing happens. They don't lose the extra ones.
For a PC Aspect, let's say you've got a Focused Practitioner with something like "Neuromancer." The player can tap that Aspect, spending a Fate Point to gain bonuses on his rolls when using a mind-affecting spell. That would be the good side of the Aspect. The bad side would be the GM compelling the player to use his Neuromancy to "fix" things, like other people's personalities. This would earn the Neuromancer a Fate Point, which he can then use to tap his Neuromancer Aspect to gain a bonus to his roll to act on the Compel.
Wow. It does become easier to bend other minds the more yours gets bent.
Do I have the gist of things?
-
You're pretty close.
Refresh is the number of fate points you start a session with. If your refresh is 5 and you ended last session with 10, you've got 5. If you ended last session with 1, you've got 5. This is to avoid the temptation to camp on massive numbers of fate points instead of spending them like mad.
So some Red Court vampire with a refresh of negative 2 will automatically give in to the first 3 compels each session and end up with a single fate point then. Once something monstrous reaches negative refresh, it's monstrous all the time.
Second, it doesn't matter which Aspect earns you fate points. If your Neuromancer Aspect earns you a fate point by means of a juicy compel, you can just as easily use it to invoke your "big as an ox" Aspect totally unrelated to what earned your fate point.
Related to the Neuromancer Aspect, we know from previous teasers that there are going to be Stunts related to having broken the Laws of Magic. If you break the Law associated with mind control, you get a Stunt which lowers your refresh by 1 but adds 1 to all future attempts to break that Law. It's like a Dark Side thing where once you've done things the evil way, there's always an incentive to tempt you to do it again.
-
Ahazil,
First and foremost, you're reacting to a small part without seeing the entire whole. So keep that in mind: without the full picture, you're not seeing certain things which are true -- such as White Court Vampires, at least at some levels, being fully playable in the game. Thomas (at least in games of certain power levels) is definitely a playable PC!
Here's a short version of the answer: Ultimately this is not a question about MORALITY in the sense of GOOD vs. EVIL. It's a question about POWER vs. FREEDOM. In the DFRPG, the more powerful you are, the less freedom of will you have. This is canonically true in the novels, and doesn't just apply to the bad guys! Angels have a lot of power, but no freedom. Well-intentioned folks like the Summer Lady, Lily, have a lot of power, but no freedom.
In the stuff we write in the game, we sum up the effect of this as: "Monsters have Power; Mortals have Free Will". So when we say that a Red Court Vampire becomes an NPC when its powers are fully manifested, we're not saying that it's because they're evil. It's because they've manifested so much power (supernatural or natural) that they've lost their freedom of will -- the essential thing that makes a player character.
From a system standpoint this is a simple case of saying "if you don't have the points to take the powers, and you buy the powers anyway, you stop being a PC". The fact that this is sympatico with the notion of POWER vs. FREE WILL from the novels is an extra benefit for us, and ties the system together with the story, which we like.
That's not to say there aren't elements of morality that are in the books, baked right in. Breaking the Laws of Magic -- which has SOME elements of morality in it -- does actually mentally corrupt someone, just the way an increase in power can. So we've got that baked into the system.
But there's no baked-in specific-religion morality in the game. If anything, the game is highly friendly to the perspectives of all religions.
If that's not your cup of tea, I can understand that, but it's not out of line with the books at all.
That doesn't sound true. that sounds like you defense of the choice to make evil=npc. First of all PCs can get powerful and they stay pc. So its not about freedom. I agree, there is no reason someone can not be playable as a red court vampire for example. Everything has limits to their power, but they make the choices they can with what abilities they do have. The Summer Ladies can decide what to do, they can even decide to upset the balance of Faerie, but they know the consequenses, so they are unlikelt to do so. Same with the "good" guys. A wizard could kill a Queen of Faerie, but they know to do so would be a disaster for the world. No difference at all.
-
You can protest the reasoning, but it's how the game's being done. If that's not to your taste, we have no complaint about you choosing to spend your gaming dollars elsewhere.
-
That doesn't sound true. that sounds like you defense of the choice to make evil=npc. First of all PCs can get powerful and they stay pc. So its not about freedom.
Not all powers make you evil, though. And it's the powers that make you into an NPC.
Say for example you have a character like Michael. It's really difficult to argue that someone like Michael is anything other than a good guy. If I met someone in real life who was like him, I'd buy him a beer.
So let's start with someone like Michael, but a bit different. Give him some more supernatural powers. Maybe his faith can heal others. While we're at it, his faith can heal himself, too. Keep adding on powers for a bit. Each one costs you refresh. Let's say you start with 10. I'm going to give some powers arbitrary costs to illustrate this. Healing someone else might cost you 2. Healing yourself 2 more. It might cost 5 more to get some holy relic the ability to keep unholy things at bay. Add in a power to know when your friends are in danger for another 2 points. Oops. That's 11 points, which is a negative refresh.
That guy has so much supernatural power that he can't be a PC. All of it is aimed at helping people. He's pretty obviously a good person. Yet he's not playable by the rules.
-
Yeah, let's be clear about one thing here: the cutoff we're talking about is not the point at which "you become evil", it's the point at which you lose the choice to be something other than what your nature dictates you be.
-
Not all powers make you evil, though. And it's the powers that make you into an NPC.
Say for example you have a character like Michael. It's really difficult to argue that someone like Michael is anything other than a good guy. If I met someone in real life who was like him, I'd buy him a beer.
So let's start with someone like Michael, but a bit different. Give him some more supernatural powers. Maybe his faith can heal others. While we're at it, his faith can heal himself, too. Keep adding on powers for a bit. Each one costs you refresh. Let's say you start with 10. I'm going to give some powers arbitrary costs to illustrate this. Healing someone else might cost you 2. Healing yourself 2 more. It might cost 5 more to get some holy relic the ability to keep unholy things at bay. Add in a power to know when your friends are in danger for another 2 points. Oops. That's 11 points, which is a negative refresh.
That guy has so much supernatural power that he can't be a PC. All of it is aimed at helping people. He's pretty obviously a good person. Yet he's not playable by the rules.
right but mike, harry, marcone etc.. pretty much any character from the books is super powerful by normal game standards. They are in a campaign with a massive general rate. But they weren't always like that, they had to build up. Thats part of the fun of an rpg. Maybe mike just started with a shiny sword and learned the spidey sense later? Sanya isnt' as good at it as mike, and mike wasn't as good as shiro. Different levels.
-
right but mike, harry, marcone etc.. pretty much any character from the books is super powerful by normal game standards.
What "normal game" are you talking about? They're straight-up starting characters in some of mine, if we're talking them as they appear in Storm Front.
They are in a campaign with a massive general rate. But they weren't always like that, they had to build up. Thats part of the fun of an rpg. Maybe mike just started with a shiny sword and learned the spidey sense later? Sanya isnt' as good at it as mike, and mike wasn't as good as shiro. Different levels.
Nothing I've said (and really nothing that Mouse has said) contradicts what you're saying. Advancement *does* happen. Folks *can* grow. But in terms of "what can I play?", that's constrained by what the GM decides is the STARTING level of power for the game.
-
You've gotta give the devs a break - they have to create a structure for the game as they see the IP/Game world/Whatever fitting into it. If they don't draw any lines, or hand wave too much, the game would have no structure and the wouldn't represent anything.
That doesn't mean you can't use the game system to play a version of 'Red Court - The Masked Ball' - it's just not how they see the game working for playing TDF.
-
I guess the question becomes, will NPC types have a power level associated with them? If so that might allow a fairly easy homegrown campaign to do some kind of "reverse" scenario where you're red court vampires working against wizards. That could be a fun campaign, high powered, but fun never the less.
-
NPCs are going to have a refresh cost associated with their stunts & powers -- which is a pretty good, if rough, barometer of power.
-
The OP seems to be of the opinion that house rules are an insult to the author.
That's how I took it too. And I would submit that only a quality RPG can be loved so dearly to have house rules made for it. ;)
And I am in full geek-mode over what I've read so far here.
-
Playing a character who HAS to give in to their Compels could make for interesting roleplay as well. How far out of your way will your Sidhe warrior go out of his way to avoid being asked something thrice? Or what if your White Court vampire has sworn to avoid feeding on a member of the Catholic Clergy, but he's just fought a devastating battle to save a classroom full of catholic schoolchildren? Will you then break the vow and feed on the Sister responsible for them, or will you sate your hunger on an innocent child? Or would you find some other way to feed, while still obeying your compulsion not to feed on a nun?
It's not the style of game for everyone, and it's sure to garner cries of "toot toot, railroad!" from some, but it provides a challenge that some people would find even more fun than free will.
-
It's not the style of game for everyone, and it's sure to garner cries of "toot toot, railroad!" from some, but it provides a challenge that some people would find even more fun than free will.
I imagine that those people would be in the minority. Most of the folks I've played with haven't liked being absolutely forced to do something without an option.
-
Compels aren't a force, they're constraint. It's important to recognize that. They eliminate options, but they don't say you can only do this one specific thing. Your Anger aspect might get compelled, and you'd have to act angrily/in anger, but what that action is is still determinable by the player.
-
I imagine that those people would be in the minority. Most of the folks I've played with haven't liked being absolutely forced to do something without an option.
I suppose I phrased my idea poorly.
What I mean is, you're only FORCED to do the action if all your OTHER choices are worse ones (or if your choices leading up to your quandry are so bad that there's no other option). It's like dying in an RPG: You don't LIKE dying, but sometimes the things you do make it unavoidable to die. As I showed in my example with not feeding on clergy, you don't necessarily HAVE to act according to your Compel, but it DOES provide a moral quandry that wouldn't be there if you could just ignore your Compel. The fun isn't in being backed into a corner from which your only egress is the Compel; it's about making you choose between the monster that's in your nature and whatever the alternative is.
Harry faced similar distasteful choices when dealing with Lash. His cooperation with her on various occasions was distasteful, but he decided that the cost of NOT cooperating would be too high. That's what I'm talking about. Not "here is your adventure. Minute 1: you must do this. Now you may resume playing your character" sort of things. Just "If I do this, will I be in a hole so deep that my only choice will be to ____?"
-
Compels aren't a force, they're constraint. It's important to recognize that. They eliminate options, but they don't say you can only do this one specific thing. Your Anger aspect might get compelled, and you'd have to act angrily/in anger, but what that action is is still determinable by the player.
I worded what I meant poorly.
What I meant is probably closer to: Some people wouldn't like having their options limited in that fashion.
-
Even when it's to their advantage i.e. they get a Fate point? They've chosen the Aspect - might as well take a disadvantage/flaw/complication in another game system and subsequently complain about their character being a pacifist/having no legs/being alcoholic. They got on the game train - they knew which stations it would stop at. Of course, some GMs might keep throwing leaves on the line at every opportunity, but-
Okay, I'm going to stop the train metaphors now before the topic gets derailed.
-
Role Playing in general and Fate in particular isn't about playing perfect characters who always win the day - it's about making fun stories playing interesting characters who struggle through.
Aspects are both a character's passions and flaws - they can be engaged or taken advantage of by both the character and others. Just like real life.
-
Even when it's to their advantage i.e. they get a Fate point? They've chosen the Aspect - might as well take a disadvantage/flaw/complication in another game system and subsequently complain about their character being a pacifist/having no legs/being alcoholic.
I'm thinking more as a situational thing. You can want to play a character with certain conflicts, conflicts you enjoy playing out, and still have situations where you'd rather they didn't pop up. Having the option to just say no is nice.
-
Well, what is and isn't fun is the consensus of the table, so players can always argue that it's not fun for that to happen to their character, and maybe the compel can be changed or ignored on that occasion.
-
Well, what is and isn't fun is the consensus of the table, so players can always argue that it's not fun for that to happen to their character, and maybe the compel can be changed or ignored on that occasion.
Which runs exactly parallel to what I said, so we agree.
-
Yup. House rules are always the final word.