Regardless, an item’s casting strength after all bonuses are totaled should never exceed two times the crafter’s Lore rating—at least not without a very good rationale and a ton of baggage.Simple as that.
A potion of that scale that grants powers sounds like an invitation to NPC-hood via Mid-Session Upgrading. I think the GM would be perfectly within his rights to say "Okay, you just gave yourself Phenomenal Cosmic Power for the next half a year. That means for the next half-a-year, until it wears off, your character has negative Refresh and is now an NPC. What was your backup character's name again?"When the players go for such things, I am quite sure that they are asking for the potion to grant them not just the access to gain such powers but also the ability to pay for them without losing their sense of self and free will.
When the players go for such things, I am quite sure that they are asking for the potion to grant them not just the access to gain such powers but also the ability to pay for them without losing their sense of self and free will.Last I checked, gaining Refresh is the prerogative of the GM, not the PC. They're called Milestones and are granted by the GM, never the player. If a player were to say that to me, I'd first call shenanigans, and then call that player aside for a little talk about game balance.
GM: "Okay, you just gave yourself Phenomenal Cosmic Power for the next half a year. That means..."
Players who were involved in the creation of the potion: "That means for the next half-a-year, until it wears off, my character temporarily gets enough Refresh so that he is not an NPC. What were you saying again?"
Last I checked, gaining Refresh is the prerogative of the GM, not the PC. They're called Milestones and are granted by the GM, never the player. If a player were to say that to me, I'd first call shenanigans, and then call that player aside for a little talk about game balance.The last time I checked the only 2 things that the GM decides with respect to Refresh are Milestones and Power levels.
The last time I checked the only 2 things that the GM decides with respect to Refresh are Milestones and Power levels.
Depending on how many players were in favor of and worked on such a spell, well... there are a number of players and not just a player.
I've been thinking about this for a bit and I realized that there could be some good in this kind of thing just as with a ritual of that power. One could send the party about on a quest to find rare and important ingredients and then find the support that would be necessary to create some sort of wish potion all for some deep role-playing reason (like in Death Masks).(click to show/hide)
The original post seemed more concerned with Munchkin-type behavior, player-proposed efforts to bend the rules to gather a lot of power.
The original post seemed more concerned with Munchkin-type behavior, player-proposed efforts to bend the rules to gather a lot of power.
The "lorex2" part seems to be very debate-able, and from all of my scouring here it appears not to apply to potions.
So if someone tries to sidestep that, as in Toturi's example, I, personally, would have a talk with them that, if they are particularly stubborn about it, might end with me announcing to the gaming club that there is now an opening.It seems that there is a difference on how we are seeing this. While you see this as one gamer out of a group that wants a different game from the rest, I am seeing this as the entire group or a large majority of the players as wanting a different game from what the GM wants, in my example, the GM is the minority. So is he going to do his railroad and make it my-way-or-the-highway or is he going to accomodate his group? I do not think that it is common gamer courtesy to not break the game, I think it is common gamer courtesy to not make the game more difficult for your fellow gamers.
EDIT: Really, this is just common gamer courtesy; you do not, or at least should not, try to break the game. Just as in D&D you do not insist on playing Pun-Pun, or try to cast the Detect City Bomb, or any of those other fun theoretical concepts. Same here. No trying to cast ascension rituals and then try to avoid the costs associated.
If he cannot handle such a game, then he should leave and let someone who can GM.
So please don't say "some groups like this sort of thing" when people are trying to deal with a rules loophole.It is only a loophole if you choose to see it as such. To me it is an artifact of the rules, nothing more.
Sure. but do you feel the rules support 100-shift potions or not?My personal feeling is that the rules do support such potions, while there is a case to be made either way, but I would allow it. The invocation of Aspects difference for potions are more than sufficient to satisfy the "very good rationale and a ton of baggage" clause.
I think it is common GM courtesy to run the game his players want, even if it may not be something he wants.
No it's not. Everyone should have fun and want to play the game. GM included. You talk about the GM not railroading players. how about the players not railroading a GM?Then the GM should learn to have fun, instead of asking his players to learn to enjoy his game. The good of the many outweigh the good of the few. 1 GM. Many players. The players cannot railroad their GM, only the GM can railroad and that is why it is common GM courtesy to run the game his players want.
Then the GM should learn to have fun, instead of asking his players to learn to enjoy his game. The good of the many outweigh the good of the few. 1 GM. Many players. The players cannot railroad their GM, only the GM can railroad and that is why it is common GM courtesy to run the game his players want.
However, the GM is volunteering his time and effort for the others' enjoyment; if the GM is not enjoying the game that they are running, they should walk away. A GM is, after all, a volunteer, and is he is putting in the lion's share of the work and effort into the game, he should have the lion's share of input.Indeed, and that is precisely what he should be doing. Therefore since he is a volunteer, then he should walk away instead of demanding the lion's share of the enjoyment as if it is his due.
In most other games, you'd be right: the GM is often the one putting in the lion's share of the work and effort, and because of this, he gets the lion's share of input. But not so much as in DFRPG. Indeed, compromised should be practiced, instead of the GM "announcing to the gaming club that there is now an opening". One should practice what one preaches, afterall.
You're taking my line out of context. That type of announcement would be if the player is being particularly stubborn and completely unwilling to compromise or listen, and is trying to break the game for his own benefit--by, for the example given in that post, trying to perform an ascension ritual and then claim that a newborn god is still a viable player character at just about any power level.Yes, but if that is what the players want, that they want to perform such an ascension ritual and accept that one of their number is a viable player character despite his new power level, should you not compromise and allow it?
Yes, but if that is what the players want, that they want to perform such an ascension ritual and accept that one of their number is a viable player character despite his new power level, should you not compromise and allow it?No, that's not compromising. Compromising is about give and take, you are asking the GM to do all the giving. A compromise would be allowing the player to perform the ascension ritual as part of a campaign arc. Something that would required one or more major milestones to complete.
No, that's not compromising. Compromising is about give and take, you are asking the GM to do all the giving. A compromise would be allowing the player to perform the ascension ritual as part of a campaign arc. Something that would required one or more major milestones to complete.I agree that allowing the player to perform the ascension ritual as part of a campaign arc would be a compromise. The 100 shift potion could be a part of that ritual. What is important is that the players are allowed to do so in the first place.
What is important is that the players are allowed to do so in the first place.Not really, what's important is that everyone enjoys themselves.
It all depends on whether you consider a potion to be subset of "enchanted item" or a similar but differentiable item.
YS 278:
"There are two basic kinds of magical items: focus items and enchanted items... enchanted items store energy and release it again in some predetermined manner, sort of like a “spell in a box.”...
Potions and their ilk are a kind of fire-and-forget enchanted item. They store energy, but once consumed, the energy is used up and the item is effectively destroyed."
If we then factor in YS 280 (as has been quoted earlier but is requoted here for convenience):
"Regardless, an item’s casting strength after all bonuses are totaled should never exceed two times the crafter’s Lore rating—at least not without a very good rationale and a ton of baggage."
And also YS 280:
"Unlike a normal enchanted item, the effect strength of the potion may be boosted on the fly or at the time it is created with the invocation of aspects."
The bit in bold seems more clearly to express *when* that boost can come into play (giving you the narrative freedom to increase its effectiveness in response to the plot, rather than having to bean-count and plan ahead). I feel it to be a stretch to use it to justify the unlimited addition of Aspects, and so "good rationale and a ton of baggage" would still apply.
Edit: And as a bonus, "You may choose to take a compel in order to get this bonus for free, but that means the GM can introduce that compel at any time later without giving you the opportunity to refuse—you’ve already agreed to it by taking the additional strength for the potion. In general, only one such “pay-it-forward” compel should be allowed at a time."
The game offers explicit permission to go into Fate Point Debt to boost a potion, but advocates limiting it to once per potion. Although one could potentially argue that the rules are allowing multiple "pay-it-forward" but limiting GM compels, it is a weak argument: if this was the intent, then the rules would have been phrased more clearly to reflect the GM/player relationship - as it stands, I contend that the "pay-it-forward" limit applies to the potion-making/modifying.
Given that Potions have its own section that's on equal footing to enchanted items, it seems like they follow different rules. That's why they in fact repeat a lot of the enchanted item rules for potions, because they need to be repeated.
As uncovered in the debate about whether you can Invoke for Effect as a free tag, one cannot assume that.
What we found out was that when there are broad rules about something, but they aren't all repeated in a subsection of the rules, it is not an indicator that the broader rules did not apply.
That wasn't really my point. I was arguing that Potions were generally governed by the same Lore limits as other enchanted items.
And my point is that limit appears in the "Enchanted Item" subsection (a section on the same weight as potions, for what it is worth). That section says you can reduce the power of an enchanted item by 1 to increase the number of uses by 1. Seems if you are going to say the one applies to potions then you have to say the other does as well.
This is the risk when resurrecting old threads - I'm not exactly sure that we are actually in conflict about anything in particular.
And my point is that limit appears in the "Enchanted Item" subsection (a section on the same weight as potions, for what it is worth). That section says you can reduce the power of an enchanted item by 1 to increase the number of uses by 1. Seems if you are going to say the one applies to potions then you have to say the other does as well.
Didn't Harry do exactly that with the teleportation brew in the, um, love potion incident?