ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Watson on November 15, 2010, 11:42:18 AM
-
I have searched the forum and the rule book, but can't find anything that limits the number of Manuevers that one person can do in order to place temporary Aspect on a target. Are there any limits for this?
I can see that there is some kind of "in-game limit" during play, as each Manuever takes one exchange (thus three Manuevers takes three exchanges to do, during which time his/her opponent take do three attacks on the one doing the Manuevers).
-
Technically there is no limit on how many temporary aspects you can generate.
However: You wont benefit from lots of aspects. To get the free tag it has to be taken more or less immediately. After that you only may invoke aspects spending FP or the GM may compel it. That said, it makes not a lot of sense to spend all actions upon crating aspects because you're not likely to have enough FP to invoke them all.
-
An aspect has to be taken advantage of immediately if it is fragile. If it is a sticky or otherwise prolonged aspect, it does not have to be tagged immediately.
That said, the real limit in aspects is that they have to fit the action you want to tag them for and that you could reasonably use said aspects in that action.
-
An aspect has to be taken advantage of immediately if it is fragile. If it is a sticky or otherwise prolonged aspect, it does not have to be tagged immediately.
Untrue. Tagging rules state that in order to get the bonus from tagging you've got to do it (almost) immediately, regardless if it is a sticky or a fragile aspect:
A tag is subject to one key limitation: it must
occur almost immediately after the aspect has
been brought into play. Some minor delay is
acceptable, but should be avoided when possible.
At worst, a tag should happen sometime during
the scene in which it was established. (YW 106)
The only thing a sticky or temporal aspect allows you is to invoke it repeatedly spending FP. It has the extra benefit that the victim of the maneuver has to get rid of the maneuver if it wants to avoid invokes by the character who placed the aspect or compels by the GM.
-
So tags in the same scene are possible? That still allows for some aspect stacking.
Do you think a GM would be entitled to disallow the tag if the player could tag the aspect in his/her next action but chose to take another action instead?
-
So tags in the same scene are possible? That still allows for some aspect stacking.
Do you think a GM would be entitled to disallow the tag if the player could tag the aspect in his/her next action but chose to take another action instead?
Yeah. If the tag doesn't follow right away it comes down to the GM to decide weather or not to allow the tag in a subsequent exchange. If the maneuver takes place outside of conflict I wouldn't make a huge fuzz and allow the player to to tag at a later point during the scene, but only if the aspect hasn't been resolved in some other way.
I guess it helps to view the tag as a moment of advantage that the creator gets. This moment may or may not pass swiftly. When allowing a late tag of an aspect, it is up to the GM to decide if the moment of advantage has passed or not.
-
My interpretation of the "almost immediately" stipulation is that you should use it on your next action if possible. If something exterior to you prevents you from doing so somehow, then that will delay how long you get access to the free tag.
If you have the chance to use it and you don't, you lose it. If you make the decisions to not take advantage of the free tag, you have made the decision to sacrifice getting the benefits for free.
Of course, there are always special circumstances. Be flexible if it seems like it'd be a cool thing to do.
-
Thanks for the quick replies! I interpret it as it is technically possible for one person to create several maneuvers after each other, stacking temporary aspects on a target, and then tag all of them in one mighty attack.
Would it be fair to say that temporary aspects placed on a target as a result of maneuvers can be removed (without a roll, from the targets side) if the target having the aspect does something that makes the aspect seem pointless?
What I mean is something like this: Two PC’s fight a single NPC in a narrow alley, and the PC’s act first in the exchange, by performing maneuvers on the target (placing the temporary aspects CORNERED and OUT OF BALANCE on the target). The target NPC then selects to sprint as his action during the exchange. Would the two aspects still be applicable, despite that the target no longer is in the same zone (perhaps he is in the open, in another zone, and most likely not “out of balance” any more)? Can I as a GM simply remove the two aspects?
-
What I mean is something like this: Two PC’s fight a single NPC in a narrow alley, and the PC’s act first in the exchange, by performing maneuvers on the target (placing the temporary aspects CORNERED and OUT OF BALANCE on the target). The target NPC then selects to sprint as his action during the exchange. Would the two aspects still be applicable, despite that the target no longer is in the same zone (perhaps he is in the open, in another zone, and most likely not “out of balance” any more)? Can I as a GM simply remove the two aspects?
It would be unfair towards your players if you'd just decide that the NPC is able to simply sprint away from them in this situation. After all he is cornered and out of balance. In my opinion as a GM you should treat the NPC same as any PC and compel the generated aspects. If he has the FP to buy out of them (which in most chases of NPCs is very unlikely) then the answer is yes. The NPC will be able to sprint away from the PC and the aspects are likely to get obsolete.
If the NPC hasn't got the FP to buy out of the two compels then he will earn additional FP as any PC would and the two PC get their tags as per the usual rules.
Regarding the stacking of tagable aspects: Generally I'd argue that the rules try to prohibit it, yet they don't make it impossible. When I'm GMing and one of the players would try to stack tagable aspects he or she would have to describe to my very detailed and reasonable how she'd benefit from the created aspects.
Addendum: If you want to prevent someone from running away and make sure that he wont, use a block. It'll serve you better then a maneuver.
-
It's very common in spellcasting of intricate spells (for thaumaturgy complexity, ect) to spend multiple actions creating aspects... while these are done in a few quick rolls, narratively it can take... weeks, longer?
"I research the demon in a library" "ok it takes you a few days, roll lore"
"next, I use my resources to buy quality ingredients" "roll resources, and wait for them to arrive in the mail."
"Now I'm going to gather a few hedge wizards to help out" "roll contacts, you'll need to set a date for the ritual now so they know when to attend"
"ok, well I'd like to spend my remaining time until then in meditation, purifying my mind." "roll conviction."
One spell, four tags, a few weeks... and that's perfectly normal for a spell like that.
Equally common (as in, I've seen it when I've played and when I've GMed, and read about it on the boards and blogs) is the dogpile:
Four people surround the victim.
Attacker 1 makes a declaration (fists vs fists, he doesn't know the particular martial arts I am using, and isn't ready for it), and a maneuver (athletics vs athletics, better positioned).
Attacker 2 makes a declaration (fists vs fists, he doesn't know that I am using a different martial arts but have long practiced with my buddies to create a cohesive fighting style as a squad), and a maneuver (athletics vs athletics, flanked)
Attacker 3 makes a declaration (fists vs fists, I've been in a lot more gang fights than this dude and am better prepared for this), and a manuever (athletics vs athletics, surrounded)
Attacker 4 makes a declaration (fists vs fists, the opponent is unaware of the particular attack my buddies have set me up for), and tags every available aspect. If all landed, he now tags seven aspects for a +14 on his roll (although it's likely that maybe half worked?), and assuming he had, say, a +4, he now rolls and adds 18, resisted by athletics, fists, ect. The opponent is easily getting hit for 10-20 stress, inflicting consequences and probably forcing a concession.
So, I'm probably more okay than others might be if the same player wants to spend a few rounds doing something similar, only alone. Stealth through the area, getting not only an aspect but also the surprise attack benefits. Use your weapons skill to analyze the opponent's threat level. Use your lore to see if you can detect anything abnormal, and make guesses about the opponent's strengths and weaknesses. Use your guns skill to aim. Snipe from cover with a +8 on top of your skill of 5. Tag 3 aspects as well, so now you're rolling and adding it to 19... sounds like a good stealth kill to me; if you can pull it off given that every roll will be opposed.
Creating aspects for one big hit is the way combat seems to work best. It also allows your ninja PC to feel important for spending those few rounds, well, being a ninja, instead of jumping out and swinging each round, which becomes optimal if tags are limited.
IS there an upper limit? Hrm, usually the situation only allows so many tags. If someone seems content to just sit back and try to pile up tags, then I begin logically restricting other tags due to the opponent's actions, as well as toss something in to make the situation more urgent.
-
Also realize that now your enemy is running away from you instead of trying to shoot/punch/claw your face off; your maneuvers have effectively limited their actions (and now you can shoot them in the back!)
-
Thanks for the quick replies! I interpret it as it is technically possible for one person to create several maneuvers after each other, stacking temporary aspects on a target, and then tag all of them in one mighty attack.
Would it be fair to say that temporary aspects placed on a target as a result of maneuvers can be removed (without a roll, from the targets side) if the target having the aspect does something that makes the aspect seem pointless?
What I mean is something like this: Two PC’s fight a single NPC in a narrow alley, and the PC’s act first in the exchange, by performing maneuvers on the target (placing the temporary aspects CORNERED and OUT OF BALANCE on the target). The target NPC then selects to sprint as his action during the exchange. Would the two aspects still be applicable, despite that the target no longer is in the same zone (perhaps he is in the open, in another zone, and most likely not “out of balance” any more)? Can I as a GM simply remove the two aspects?
In this case, I'd say that your NPC needs to roll athletics vs the PC's athletics to remove the aspects legitimately. However, if he did something like, use an item to pop open a portal to the nevernever behind him, then stumble back into it, then I'd say he doesn't really have to roll to remove the "cornered" aspect. Similarly, in the example I gave, let's say the PC creates an "aiming" aspect, that is sticky unless removed... but the NPC (unaware of the player) steps out of the warehouse door and closes it. There's no roll there, but the aspect is gone. I'd also make the PC hit another stealth check to keep that aspect up, as he has to creep out of the warehouse now. The other two (done with weapons and lore) stay.
In general, though, it should be opposed whenever possible, and removed without a roll only when it's truly something that has no logical counter roll.
-
Realized that your NPC should actually be rolling athletics vs [skill used to apply aspect]. So if he was cornered with Fists, he needs athletics vs Fists.
-
Equally common (as in, I've seen it when I've played and when I've GMed, and read about it on the boards and blogs) is the dogpile:
Four people surround the victim.
Attacker 1 makes a declaration (fists vs fists, he doesn't know the particular martial arts I am using, and isn't ready for it), and a maneuver (athletics vs athletics, better positioned).
Attacker 2 makes a declaration (fists vs fists, he doesn't know that I am using a different martial arts but have long practiced with my buddies to create a cohesive fighting style as a squad), and a maneuver (athletics vs athletics, flanked)
Attacker 3 makes a declaration (fists vs fists, I've been in a lot more gang fights than this dude and am better prepared for this), and a manuever (athletics vs athletics, surrounded)
Attacker 4 makes a declaration (fists vs fists, the opponent is unaware of the particular attack my buddies have set me up for), and tags every available aspect. If all landed, he now tags seven aspects for a +14 on his roll (although it's likely that maybe half worked?), and assuming he had, say, a +4, he now rolls and adds 18, resisted by athletics, fists, ect. The opponent is easily getting hit for 10-20 stress, inflicting consequences and probably forcing a concession.
This seems like something I wouldn't allow simply because the declarations aren't really in the spirit of a declaration. Declarations are so easy because they are supposed to add flavor and color to the world, thus making the job of GM easier. These declarations don't really add flavor nor do they make my job easier.
But getting away from my tangent, this is a good point to make. The time when multiple maneuvers can be really effective is when they are done by different people and the tags are handed to an ally. Doesn't always work thematically (I.E. the enemy not knowing attacker 1's style is not going to help attacker 4) but it can be great when it does.
-
This seems like something I wouldn't allow simply because the declarations aren't really in the spirit of a declaration. Declarations are so easy because they are supposed to add flavor and color to the world, thus making the job of GM easier. These declarations don't really add flavor nor do they make my job easier.
Yeah, sorry, I was trying to give quick declarations but more examples. Technically, a declaration is any skill used in a knowledge-type way that could be done instantly (as a free action). Each attacker could have declared "I use my fists vs his fists to size up his weaknesses, to help us set up a coordinated attack against him" and then maneuvered for "surrounded in a concerted coordinated attack". Then the last person tags everything. While, mechanically, this represents one person attacking, narratively it represents a bunch of guys working together (one swinging at you to tie up your hands, another kicking you so you try to block with your feet, while the guy behind you kidney shots you) to inflict major damage.
I see your point about why declarations are easy, but I see this as just as viable (and thus acceptable) of a form of play as each person attacking independently, and nickel and dime-ing the guy to death. Roll-wise, it's about the same (they're rolling opposed rolls for all these declarations and maneuvers), but at least I'm tracking damage less often! It also represents how in a fight like that, you might take a lot of little hits, but only a few really seem to matter.
-
I see your point about why declarations are easy, but I see this as just as viable (and thus acceptable) of a form of play as each person attacking independently, and nickel and dime-ing the guy to death. Roll-wise, it's about the same (they're rolling opposed rolls for all these declarations and maneuvers), but at least I'm tracking damage less often! It also represents how in a fight like that, you might take a lot of little hits, but only a few really seem to matter.
You are right. Technically it is legit to declare stuff like you did in your example. Sinkers point was that using declarations like that isn't in the spirit of declarations. In accordance with the guidelines for declarations I'd treat any of the declarations from your example as of Fantastic +6 difficulty as the only thing they do is to give an extra edge. They aren't funny, nor are they cool or lead to something interesting...
I doubt that I'd allow something as extreme as your example at all. I'd probably would give the second player in the line a raise of my eyebrow and a grudging nod, but ask the third if he's serious...
-
Yeah, sorry, I was trying to give quick declarations but more examples. Technically, a declaration is any skill used in a knowledge-type way that could be done instantly (as a free action). Each attacker could have declared "I use my fists vs his fists to size up his weaknesses, to help us set up a coordinated attack against him" and then maneuvered for "surrounded in a concerted coordinated attack". Then the last person tags everything. While, mechanically, this represents one person attacking, narratively it represents a bunch of guys working together (one swinging at you to tie up your hands, another kicking you so you try to block with your feet, while the guy behind you kidney shots you) to inflict major damage.
I really wasn't trying to disagree with your central point, it seems functional enough to me. I was just born a rules-lawyer so I have to nit-pick. Apologies.
-
I think that in that "dogpile" example, it would be extremely amusing for the 'victim' to go right after Attacker 3, and make the Declaration "The fighting style I was using was a ploy", then tag that aspect PLUS all of the other aspects the attackers put up to lay the royal smackdown on one of his assailants.
Some things to think about regarding Declarations:
* The GM is within is rights to say "no". For example, the 'victim' above might be well versed in martial arts and perceptive. He might well know exactly what fighting style Attacker 1 is using (or at least be familiar with a close analogue). He might not only recognize Attacker 2's fighting style, but also recognize that Attackers 1 & 2 are timing their attacks with each other. He might have been in two or three times as many brawls as Attacker 3. And being aware of those facts, he may well recognize that he's being set up for an attack by Attacker 4.
* The rules suggest a difficulty for Declarations that's based on how interesting/funny the Declaration is. The target number could be anywhere from 0 to 6, with particularly uninspired Declarations being fairly difficult to succeed with.
* When making Declarations "against" a target, it seems reasonable to allow a defense roll against the Declaration (in the above examples, the victim's Fists might defend his experience, or his Alertness might defend against being surprised). Combine this with a high base difficulty and dull Declarations like "I fight better than him" might need quite a lot of luck on the dice to succeed.
* Something along the lines of "I've long practiced with my buddies to create a cohesive fighting style as a squad" shouldn't be Declaration. It might be an aspect that one or more characters share (much like the "Hail, Hail" aspect that the sample characters have in YS), but it shouldn't be a Declaration.
-
I doubt that I'd allow something as extreme as your example at all.
Yeah, i was giving the example just to show that it can be done. The "interesting/funny" declaration is a tough call; it needs to be useful to the players enough that they use the mechanic, but hopefully not so much that they try to do so every round/action. When you're making a declaration (like in the books? or was it on a blog? i read way too much about this game) that the enemy is poorly equipped with sub-par weapons, that's mildly interesting but still clearly an advantage to you. When the next round you declare "oh and their armor is cheap, too..." it begins to lose interest.
My favorite declarations plus maneuvers are things like declaring handy chandeliers and then maneuvering to "uppercut this psycho into the chandelier, tangling her up"... which i did last night to a PC and I'm still laughing about it.
-
The dogpile example is the same if you use maneuvers rather than declarations, isn't it? So, it could be this:
Character 1 makes a maneuver "I knock him off balance." Character 2 goes with "I shine a light in his eyes, blinding him." Character three goes with "I my gun, startling him." And Character 4 tags all three aspects.
Removes the declarations tangent.
-
yup. But it buts a +2 on the guy, instead of a +4 (for declaration + maneuver). as a GM, I only use declaration+maneuver to describe offscreen stuff to my overly rules-lawyering gamers:
Me "It appears the guy was killed in one blow"
player "How is that even possible? That's like 30 shifts of power with a tire iron."
me "Um, a butt-ton of declarations and maneuvers. Moving on."
-
"He's not a player, he doesn't get consequences. Don't you feel special now?"
-
Me "It appears the guy was killed in one blow"
player "How is that even possible? That's like 30 shifts of power with a tire iron."
me "Um, a butt-ton of declarations and maneuvers. Moving on."
Good one ... hehe ... Next time you could just answer: "30 shifts? Hardly. He wasn't prepared to take consequences and the take out was described as you see."
It is a myth that you have to go through the hole stress track to kill somebody. Most people don't want to get their arm broken in the first place. If they don't take consequences then, depending on the described attack, it may be perfectly reasonable to state that they are dead.
EDIT: MyNinja was faster then me =(
-
Is there a rule somewhere that some NPCs don't get consequences? Cause I've been house-ruling that they get less or none to make it seem more realistic (that it doesn't take 30 shifts of knife to sacrifice a baby).
Perhaps I should re-read the NPC section again.
-
Is there a rule somewhere that some NPCs don't get consequences? Cause I've been house-ruling that they get less or none to make it seem more realistic (that it doesn't take 30 shifts of knife to sacrifice a baby).
Perhaps I should re-read the NPC section again.
Yep. Basically low level NPC aren't supposed to get consequences or at most a minor. Check "Creating Opposition" Chapter in YW.
An other thing: Obviously it must be possible to kill a guy in one hit. It happens all the time in the real word. The rules are supposed to aid in the description of said world not the other way around.
-
One thing that I do with NPCs - especially with social conflicts - is have them decide how much they are willing to go through. If the PCs want some information in a social conflict I can't see the average person (i.e. the average PC) taking more than a minor consequence to keep the secret. If it's a bar brawl I can't see someone taking a severe consequence just to keep fighting... Actually, few of NPCs are willing to take severe, life altering consequences if their life isn't at stake.
In short, they aren't orcs. They give in when when a normal person would give in. They don't fight to the death over nothing - unless the PCs have a rep for killing then the NPCs have nothing to lose by pushing themselves to the wall to stay in the fight.
Richard
-
And it might also be a question of overall toughness. Some people just give up or are just not good enough to keep going. Other people might keep going after being shot at by assassins, hunted by their own allies, getting involved in a serious car accident and being hunted by a police helicopter. And they'll keep fighting and go steal a car to crash into said helicopter.
-
What consequences do you give to, say, an average ghoul? An average BCV?
It will significantly speed up play (and make the players feel more powerful) if they don't have to go through many consequences.
On the other hand, it specifically states that sacrificing someone is all of their consequences in power, and that transforming someone else / killing someone else is very high complexity, due having to take out all of their consequences.
Would you say this changes for unimportant PCs? Like, killing the gardener is only like a complexity of 12, but the president is still 30? How is that reflected, game-wise?
(I guess the answer is "you don't really know if I wrote down that he has those consequences or not, so you'd better be prepared to go through them all").
-
Summary of the guidelines from YS327:
Nameless NPCs (thugs, mooks, and the like) generally don't get consequences, and also get little more than a couple of skills and a couple of stress boxes. Supernatural creatures that fill a Nameless NPC role get whatever's on their template, but no more. Generally these should be the types of creatures that players can plow through in (small) hordes.
Supporting NPCs get a bit more detail (more skills and perhaps one or several aspects). They generally don't fight past a moderate consequence.
Main NPCs get everything that PCs would get.
That said, it's really up to the GM what opponents are put into each category, and you can even add in extra gradiations if it seems appropriate (for example, slightly more resilient thugs that get a minor consequence and an aspect). There should probably be only a small number of Main NPCs in a given scenario. Maybe the primary bad guy and a lieutenant or two. If there are multiple factions involved, each one might deserve a main NPC or two. Any time you want to just throw a handful of popcorn foes at the players, that's a job for nameless NPCs, who will generally rarely take more than one semi-decent hit to take down (and can be taken down by the group with AoE attacks). Supporting NPCs would be good for adding a little backbone to a group of nameless grunts.
As to rituals and complexities, the caster can set the complexity anywhere he sees appropriate ... but you should not tell him how many consequences the target has, nor how many stress boxes, nor what defensive skills he might have. The safest bet, then, would be to assume the worst, but the caster might not have enough resources to set up a ritual to turn a Mythic Toughness character with Endurance 5 (dual milds) etc into a frog. Assessments might be useful here. If the caster does some research and finds out the the target is just some two-bit thug that Marcone hired yesterday from Thugs R Us ... well, maybe the ritual can be scaled down a bit without sacrificing effectiveness.
-
And it might also be a question of overall toughness. Some people just give up or are just not good enough to keep going. Other people might keep going after being shot at by assassins, hunted by their own allies, getting involved in a serious car accident and being hunted by a police helicopter. And they'll keep fighting and go steal a car to crash into said helicopter.
Ha! ;)