ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: zerogain on December 08, 2010, 08:12:27 AM
-
So D&Dism aside, what kind of action do you all rule assessments and declarations to be? I have thought about free, but of late supplemental seems more right as you are dividing your focus. What do you all use? Free, supplemental or standard/attack?
-
Declarations are free actions, taken by the player not the PC. They take place outside of the RP and are limited by the players creativity and the game masters ruling.
Assessments are supplemental actions. The PC tries to asses a detail of the world. He can't be sure it is there, but if it is he may be able to exploit it.
Does this answer the question? I could go into more detail if need be.
-
Thank you for the insight. However, that raises a new question in my mind. With an assessment being a supplemental action, does that impact the one role for exchange rule?
-
How do you mean? If I read you correct, then it imposes the same -1 penalty to your main action that all supplementals do, as you are splitting your attention.
-
Well, suppose in a heated fight the character is looking for any advantage possible, he wishes to assess and attack. Obviously that's two different skills (in most cases). Use the same rollbfor both actions? To me the limitation seems vaguely silly, but maybe I don't get the intended impact.
-
My understanding is that you can't do an assessment in a heated battle. They require time and consideration. In the case that one was possible (in a long conflict, for example) I'd make it a primary action, as they figure out something of key importance.
An assessment is one of those times where the hero realizes from watching the villain that he favors his right leg, letting him on the aspect Old War Wound, so that later when they fight, the hero can take advantage of it.
-
Doesn't that sort of invalidate the idea of making an assessment a supplemental action? If you're doing extended actions there's no initiative, thus really no such thing as those actions being supplemental or free, just how much time they take on the chart.
A supplemental action is explicitly intended for the heat of an exchange, and what good is an assessment if it doesn't model the cool intelligence of a warrior who spots his foe's weakness in the midst of a battle? Realistic or not, it is in popular culture, and it is something I think most players would expect to have modeled, so it seems to me that makes an assessment a standard/attack action...
-
The duration required for an Assessment is up to the GM's adjudication, IIRC: they can take anything from a glance to hours/days of research depending on the desired information. You may not be able to justify Assessing an opponent's psychological Aspects within a combat exchange (that would take minutes, hours, weeks, or more to deduce from conversation), but certainly there are some Aspects which may be justifiably Assessed in the heat of conflict.
-
And hey, if you can't assess you can always guess at their aspects. It's a fair assumption that most goons (and goon equivalents) would have stereotypical aspects. And if you're wrong you'll get the point back or get an aspect to invoke.
-
So I did some research and found out where I went wrong. I was under the assumption that you could only make one roll per exchange, but that it apparently wrong. So the assessment (and therefore declaration) is a simple, non-opposed action that can be supplemental, depending on intent, and thus inflicting a -1 penalty on the main action for that character that exchange. Sorry for my bone-headedness on this.
-
So I did some research and found out where I went wrong. I was under the assumption that you could only make one roll per exchange, but that it apparently wrong. So the assessment (and therefore declaration) is a simple, non-opposed action that can be supplemental, depending on intent, and thus inflicting a -1 penalty on the main action for that character that exchange. Sorry for my bone-headedness on this.
Have to point out that assessments aren't non-opposed. If you try to assess a aspect on a person the person may try to defend against it with an appropriate skill (most likely deceit or such).
If I misunderstood the meaning of non-opposed ... never mind.
-
You are, of course, free to run your game how you see fit, but the description of an assessment in the book opens by labeling them as simple actions, which are one-sided rolls. Declarations are defined as a type of assessment so they too are simple actions.
-
Declarations are not assessments. Where are you reading that? An assessment is something the character uncovers through research or reading people, where a declaration is a player's statement about the game world.
Regardless, assessments are very much contested rolls, at least part of the time. Go check out the use of Empathy as an Assessment skill using the Reading People trapping(YS129).
-
So how many declarations do you allow a player to make. I had a case where the player wanted a large object to hurl at an opponent, first she tried for a window washing scaffold when that failed, she tried for a trash can, then a newspaper stand.
Does anyone limit the number declarations a player can attempt. I can understand that these are not PC actions and thus should not take time, but if you allow infinite attempts why roll at all? Just give it to the player.
JesterOC
-
So how many declarations do you allow a player to make. I had a case where the player wanted a large object to hurl at an opponent, first she tried for a window washing scaffold when that failed, she tried for a trash can, then a newspaper stand.
Does anyone limit the number declarations a player can attempt. I can understand that these are not PC actions and thus should not take time, but if you allow infinite attempts why roll at all? Just give it to the player.
JesterOC
If a player keeps trying to abuse declarations in that way, I raise an eyebrow and say no. Declarations are not meant to offer benefits to the PC. They are meant as a tool for the player to participate in the creation of the game world. That said, they are designed to make the live of the GM easier and to strengthen the relation between the created world and everybody at the gaming table.
If a declaration reeks of the simple desire to make the life of the PC easier (aka boosting of rolls), then it will and should get very hard (witch is absolutely in line with the guidelines regarding declarations). Declarations should only ever be easy, if they lead to a fun moment, an interesting sort of action or something cool. In any other situation they should be exceedingly difficult for the player to pull of, because in this case declarations make it more difficult for the GM.
That said, I see the +2 benefit of the declaration as a reward for the player that had a cool/interesting/fun idea.
-
@MyNinjaH8sU, Interesting... I'd missed that trapping. Here was my source
YS p195:
Assessments
Assessments are a special kind of simple (emphasis added) action used for determining a target’s aspects.
YS p196:
Declarations
Declarations are a special kind of assessment.
YS p192:
Simple Actions: Your character tries to do something basic, but challenging. Roll against a fixed difficulty.
-
That's weird, really, considering the whole rest of declarations. I suppose the notion is that they are similar in that both uncover/name an aspect for use.
For the purpose of assessing an opponent, I would allow a defense roll, since it is against a sentient target, seeing as how you could also use an assessment on a wall to look for structural imperfections. Something like that would make more sense as a simple action I think.
-
@zerogain: In my opinion you are sticking to much to the letter. How else is the book supposed to describe the mechanic in a way that doesn't exceed the reasonable space of a single volume?
Your quotes are still true, even if what the other users said is taken into account.
Assessments are a kind of simple action but that doesn't change that - in the context of conflict - they may be treated as supplemental actions.
Declarations are a special kind of assessment. The book uses these phrases to put things into context not to establish a chain of logic causality.
-
@MyNinjaH8sU, Interesting... I'd missed that trapping. Here was my source
YS p195:
Assessments
Assessments are a special kind of simple (emphasis added) action used for determining a target’s aspects.
YS p196:
Declarations
Declarations are a special kind of assessment.
YS p192:
Simple Actions: Your character tries to do something basic, but challenging. Roll against a fixed difficulty.
YS 116
Unlike assessment, declaration doesn’t take any
actual in-game time at all—just successful use of
a knowledge skill at the right moment.
YS 192
Assessments: You want to reveal a target’s
aspects. Roll against a fixed difficulty or roll
against the opponent’s player and the high roll
wins.
You need to read and learn all the rules, nut just fixate on a couple lines without context.
-
So how many declarations do you allow a player to make. I had a case where the player wanted a large object to hurl at an opponent, first she tried for a window washing scaffold when that failed, she tried for a trash can, then a newspaper stand.
Does anyone limit the number declarations a player can attempt. I can understand that these are not PC actions and thus should not take time, but if you allow infinite attempts why roll at all? Just give it to the player.
JesterOC
The player was trying to declare there was something large to throw. They should roll for that and then say what it was they found, not make a laundry list of possible large things and roll for each one. However, it's stupid to make a player roll for this sort of thing. This is a clear example of where "Say Yes" should apply.
-
The player was trying to declare there was something large to throw. They should roll for that and then say what it was they found, not make a laundry list of possible large things and roll for each one. However, it's stupid to make a player roll for this sort of thing. This is a clear example of where "Say Yes" should apply.
Indeed, the GM is allowed to just handwave say Yes to a given Declaration if it makes sense, looks cool, and would help with the situation.
-
Indeed, the GM is allowed to just handwave a given Declaration if it makes sense, looks cool, and would help with the situation.
Just to clarify, it's not hand-waving. Saying Yes, is part of the rules.
-
Just to clarify, it's not hand-waving. Saying Yes, is part of the rules.
I'm not certain that actually required such stringent correction, but your point is valid and I have amended my note.
-
You need to read and learn all the rules, nut just fixate on a couple lines without context.
Ouch, man. Hey, I was just listing where I found that stuff, not challenging the assertion that the action could be contested. I realize it looks like I'm fixating on the lines, but those were the most relevant, and I am trying to learn the rules, that's why I'm asking questions here. I do thank you for jumping down my throat though, it really helps. [/sarc]
I apologize to anyone whom I've offended by the tone of my earlier statements, I'm not trying to be a rules lawyering, confrontational nitpicker. When my players ask me how the game works and I don't have a cogent answer it doesn't come across well, so I want to get this kind of thing nailed down hard. That sounds odd for a supposedly free form narativist game, but there's a fair bit of hard rules in these books, and not all of them are explained clearly (at least that I notice right away).
Now, obviously with the previously shown write up on the Empathy trapping I need to go back and familiarize myself with what trappings allow what assessments and how long they take.
-
When my players ask me how the game works and I don't have a cogent answer it doesn't come across well, so I want to get this kind of thing nailed down hard. That sounds odd for a supposedly free form narativist game, but there's a fair bit of hard rules in these books, and not all of them are explained clearly (at least that I notice right away).
I'm having to go through the rules page by page with a Mind Mapping document to make sure I collect all of the relevant nuances of each rule and assemble them in a more easily referenced manner. I'm currently plowing through the Skills section.
Sometimes things are split up between different sections, and I have to reassamble them to make sense of the bigger picture. Not to say that the rules are in any way disorganized, but people have different ways of accreting this information.
-
Since I've been hammering on this, I have an example I'd like to throw into the mix.
We're in mid-exchange, and the black-hearted warlock is throwing a blast of psychic brain buggery at the intrepid warden trying to bring him to justice. The warlock rolls his spell, nails his control and winds up hitting our warden with a seriously decent effort. For the warden's defensive effort he comes up short by 1, and there's no fate points left for him to use to bring to bear any of his aspects. He can't maneuver, basically he's bent over the mental table.
Can he declare that, due to his extensive training and experience fighting these foes, that his mind is hardened against such intrusion, and create a temporary aspect of, say, IRON MIND? And then tag it for his defense? That would give him that +2 he needs to defeat the attack.
Now lets assume that you can't declare aspects on yourself, what's to stop one of the warden's allies from making that declaration? After all, they take no time, aren't actions by the characters, etc. I'm disinclined to allow it, myself, but I see a potential here and I'm curious, indulge me, please.
-
Seems to me that declarations are A. External influences, or parts of the world around the character, as opposed to components of the character themselves, and B. Actions taken in advance of one's action as opposed to reactionary things thrown in at the last minute. That's the two problems I have with the above example, but that's just my gut and I've got no rules to back me up.
-
I'm having to go through the rules page by page with a Mind Mapping document to make sure I collect all of the relevant nuances of each rule and assemble them in a more easily referenced manner. I'm currently plowing through the Skills section.
Sometimes things are split up between different sections, and I have to reassamble them to make sense of the bigger picture. Not to say that the rules are in any way disorganized, but people have different ways of accreting this information.
Could you post that mind map when you are done with it, that would be a really useful tool for people to have, imo?
-
Can he declare that, due to his extensive training and experience fighting these foes, that his mind is hardened against such intrusion, and create a temporary aspect of, say, IRON MIND? And then tag it for his defense? That would give him that +2 he needs to defeat the attack.
They have a section on Navel-Gazing Maneuvers which would do just this thing, but those maneuvers have to be performed as a full action on one's own turn.
That said, a GM might be willing to reward creative storytelling by letting the PC Declare a flashback scene when something like this happened, and allowing such an Aspect to be the result, But this would come down to play style.
-
Could you post that mind map when you are done with it, that would be a really useful tool for people to have, imo?
It's in a particular program (XMind, which is admittedly a free program), and exporting the sheer breadth of content I'd have would not be particularly reader-friendly. Which is not to say "no," but that it'd be a challenge. I may edit it down as a Word document -- I'll see what I can do.
-
They have a section on Navel-Gazing Maneuvers which would do just this thing, but those maneuvers have to be performed as a full action on one's own turn.
That said, a GM might be willing to reward creative storytelling by letting the PC Declare a flashback scene when something like this happened, and allowing such an Aspect to be the result, But this would come down to play style.
That sounds reasonable as a flashback declaration that would require a fate point, which as was stated the warden did not have. I for one would tell my player that if they don't want to spend a fate on it than it is a maneuver, but in this case there isn't time. I'd say he's Sh-- Outta Luck.
There's no hard and fast rules for when you can make a declaration, but I for one am disinclined to allow them to be made out of turn. Also, don't forget that even navel-gazing maneuvers can be defended against in some situations, such as shooting at the cover someone is diving for, as explained in YS.
-
The spirit of Declarations are generally "Luckily I happen to know x or "Is that a(n) x right there?"
-
Just to clarify, it's not hand-waving. Saying Yes, is part of the rules.
At the same time the rules give clear rules concerning what the difficulty rating of a declaration should be. And since it is a function of a skill and skills are a limited resource, it is important to not just hand wave these things because it reduces the utility of a PC whose player decided to amp up his/her perception to be able to make declarations more easily.
JesterOC
-
I apologize to anyone whom I've offended by the tone of my earlier statements, I'm not trying to be a rules lawyering, confrontational nitpicker. When my players ask me how the game works and I don't have a cogent answer it doesn't come across well, so I want to get this kind of thing nailed down hard. That sounds odd for a supposedly free form narativist game, but there's a fair bit of hard rules in these books, and not all of them are explained clearly (at least that I notice right away).
I agree with you, I come here often and ask lots of corner case questions. I am not trying to be a jerk, but I am trying to craft questions that will solidify subjects that are not clear in my head. I come from years of D&D, and Gurps playing, so I am used to hard fast rules with clear answers.
To me, FATE games cross the line between narrative centric games and mainstream "traditional" games. So far I love the way it works, but it does require much more reading and rereading than most games I own.
I have recently started reading the Spirit of the century SRD and I find that it helps a lot. Those rules seem to be stated more concisely that the Dresden Files rule book. Use caution doing this because they are not 100% the same. But I do find it a valuable resource.
-
That sounds reasonable as a flashback declaration that would require a fate point, which as was stated the warden did not have. I for one would tell my player that if they don't want to spend a fate on it than it is a maneuver, but in this case there isn't time. I'd say he's Sh-- Outta Luck.
There's no hard and fast rules for when you can make a declaration, but I for one am disinclined to allow them to be made out of turn. Also, don't forget that even navel-gazing maneuvers can be defended against in some situations, such as shooting at the cover someone is diving for, as explained in YS.
Can anyone point me at some guidelines for when to ask for a fate point for such skill uses?
Thus far I have also been denying declarations out of turn, even though they aren't really actions. I am still getting a feel for when to allow and disallow them. I do like the more open "let the players come up with it" attitude, there is a time and a place when it can get out of hand, for sure.
-
My Rule of thumb.
If no die roll is required, a fate point must be spent.