Hexing is unfortunately all over the place in the original fiction. As mentioned in previous threads, early Dresden books made a big deal out of the ramifications of having an agitated Wizard near your tech. Later books, however, highlight the newer Warden recruits regularly running around with technologically advanced firearms. One can make a case that they are younger and therefore less likely to hex things closer to tech from their own adolescence, and in some part this is covered in the Hexing table.
But between the fiction and the RPG, it remains pretty solidly as a GM Compel. In the fiction, it comes up when dramatically poignant, when a tech shortcut would make things too easy. In the RPG: same thing, and it serves as a potential vector for Fate Points to get back to the player, though whether you consider them "free" Fate Points, or a Compel of the spellcaster's High Concept is a matter of semantics.
What about Luccio being involved with computers, though? I mean, she's older than dirt... but she has great control.
In fact, before, Dresden was in awe of her control and effortless evocations.(click to show/hide)
I think that some sort of simple rule reflecting that a wizard who is more in control mixes with technology better would be nice.
I mean, even Harry was able to(click to show/hide)
I could certainly see many GMs opting for Discipline checks rather than straight Compels, but then the Spellcaster wouldn't get a Fate Point, then, would they? Or do you imagine it would go GM: "Make a roll!" Player: "I failed the roll!" GM: "Here's a Fate Point - you Hexed something!"
The other thing about compels is that they all depend on the relationship between the player and the GM. If a player starts with lots of aspects geared towards technology then it's clear that they would like to work with technology and the GM might want to give them a little leeway there (not to say that they shouldn't hit em at a dramatic moment).
Luccio doesn't play with computers, she reads about them.
A hobby is what she called it.Hobbies are very rarely merely academic pursuits.
As far as Wardens running around with Glocks and grenades, those really are simple machines. They are very hard to mess up in real life if maintained.
You know this how?
I believe when she says she's interested in computers, Harry gives her a surprised look, before she clarifies that she reads about them.But I do not recall her denying using them though.
I've always wondered why a Wizard hasn't come up with a way to enchant a computer so it isn't susceptible to Hexing. Sort of like a magical Faraday Cage.
Build it into the case then leave it dormant until the case is on the computer, activate and wizard with a working computer...of course you;d have to do that for any attached peripherals as well...but doesn't Apple already make a Magic Mouse?...*ba-dum-CHING!*
I've been thinking about this too, but it would have to rely on wireless power sources - otherwise, the power cables would be crossing the circle, would they not?
Wireless keyboards and mouse devices are already a possibility. A wireless monitor is possibly an option.
Jim has said a bit on hexing, how it wasn't always there. That at one time wizards made milk curl and did the other traditional signs of "there's someone with magic power nearby" but now the sign of a wizard being nearby is the tech stops working.
It sounds as if a law of nature is in play here - so I doubt there is an easy workaround.
Richard
Water cooled.
Running water can be used in a couple of different ways. It can be a threshold (as stated on YS230) or it could be a scene aspect that could be invoked or compelled (like in the example on YS116).
Thank you! I'm wondering in particular about the ocean.
But I do not recall her denying using them though.
Maybe it hexes the highest tech of the time.
Like... maybe that now we have electrical cars and hybrids, gasoline autos are unaffected?
::shrug::
I guess it's a GM discretion sort of thing.
I'll start with the Luccio thing. She states clearly that she reads about computers when questioned about her hobby. To take her not specifying that she only reads as proof that she does more, would be entirely illogical. There's no sensible reason to assume that because she didn't specifically say otherwise when implying otherwise, that she uses computers. She's not a fey dancing around words. She's a human with no reason to hide her ability from Dresden, especially in the context given by the book.But taking her stating that she reads about computers as only reading about them would be just as, if not more, illogical.
But taking her stating that she reads about computers as only reading about them would be just as, if not more, illogical.
Then why is that when it was used as the only explanation for how she can have computers as a hobby?Can you elaborate on this point? When was it used as the only explanation how she can have computers as a hobby?
Can you elaborate on this point? When was it used as the only explanation how she can have computers as a hobby?
As for the wizard ability to use computers through the water room. To properly fully drown out all magical ability with water, every case given in the book has the wizard IN the RUNNING water. Still water doesn't really do much of anything if anything and just being around the running water only hampers magical ability - it doesn't stop it.
So, to fully protect the computer you'd have to have the wizard in running water while using it (comfortable, no?). The peripherals would need to be waterproof for that reason and then all of these costly and annoying measures should allow the wizard to check his or her facebook for a while until the pumps that keep the water flowing over the wizard eventually give out. At that point you hope the wizard has implemented many redundancies.
You can immerse the wizard in water, or you can immerse the target (I.E. the computer) in water. Either way it insulates the tech from the wizard and one way is much easier than the other... Also the pumps could be pumping water around themselves as well as the device itself. So as I said earlier peripherals would be an issue (and I think almost always will be, there's no way to have those bits separated from the user) but otherwise the rest is fairly simple.
Luccio's writeup in OW 176 largely supports the idea that she sticks to the theoretical.Her interest in computers being purely theorectical is the most plausible explanation, you could apply Occam's Razor to this. But her write-up is also written from the perspective of someone whose source suffers to a great degree from an inability to make full use of technology.
And why is purely theoretical interest so unbelievable?
Her interest in computers being purely theorectical is the most plausible explanation, you could apply Occam's Razor to this. But her write-up is also written from the perspective of someone whose source suffers to a great degree from an inability to make full use of technology.
As I said before, hexing does not seem to follow any consistent pattern in the books. Even Ms Murphy switches from old reliable tech (circa 1911) to a more modern pistol and another automatic weapon in the more recent books.
Personally, I've never stood by the idea of hexing guns. Truthfully, if you can hex a gun, what's stopping that same hex from fouling up all the doorknobs in the same zone (mechanically speaking, one is about as complicated as another)?It make sense in terms of the RPG rules. Accidental hexing is usually a Compel on the wizard's High Concept. Unless the GM can accept giving the wizard a Fate point for causing the bad guys' guns to jam without deliberately hexing them, it won't happen. Some people have proposed that when a wizard is in a scene, the GM can Compel a scene Aspect "Around a wizard" or something similar.
Besides... in the books Harry tends to sling around a lot of magic, but still those pesky bad-guys seem to be able to sling bullets his way, shouldn't the "Angry Wizard who is now full of holes" aspect be compelled to jam their guns? But this never happens in the stories, he always has to find a way to separate bad-guy and gun.
Personally I would have had Harry accidentally hexing bad guys weapons at least some of the time. Could have saved Harry some pain if a flamethrower exploded when someone tried to use it. Evidently random bad stuff only happens to the good guys in DF.
But taking her stating that she reads about computers as only reading about them would be just as, if not more, illogical.
How does one go to medical school nowadays to keep up with the latest medical developements without coming into contact with state of the art (comparatively with respect to the age of the wizard) technological medical equipment? I would start by looking into this with regards to hexing first.
Then why is that when it was used as the only explanation for how she can have computers as a hobby? And why can't someone have theoretical applications of something as a hobby? I have a friend who's pretty knowledgeable on modern weaponry. He's never going to use them.
One thing worth noting is the idea that Hexing primarily occurs to objects the wizards doesn't understand. This makes sense with the age of a wizard rather than his powers defining what he hexes and what he doesn't. Harry owns a gun, and he's a smart guy so he probably knows how to clean and maintain it as well, which means he probably has a pretty good understanding of how guns work, therefore his magic will only hex guns when he sets it to that task and accidents would be minimal.
Personally, I've never stood by the idea of hexing guns. Truthfully, if you can hex a gun, what's stopping that same hex from fouling up all the doorknobs in the same zone (mechanically speaking, one is about as complicated as another)?
Besides... in the books Harry tends to sling around a lot of magic, but still those pesky bad-guys seem to be able to sling bullets his way, shouldn't the "Angry Wizard who is now full of holes" aspect be compelled to jam their guns? But this never happens in the stories, he always has to find a way to separate bad-guy and gun.
This is an easy question to answer. When something fouls up and messes Harry up it's a compel and he doesn't have the fate points to buy out. When something fouls up and it's good it's invoking for effect and as mentioned before harry's probably saving up all the fate points he can get for the big finale. ;D
There is one canonical example early on in the series in which Harry does hex the guns of an entire group of mercenaries, but that maneuver does not get repeated often.
I can see Luccio doing something like that, writing code that would work if someone else entered it in a computer, or fooling around with pseudo code and algorithms.
Either that, or treating it the way we treat 6th century pottery. Academics research the means of making it, who made it, how this culture was different from that culture, but very few of those academics are potters. If Luccio had said "My hobby is 6th century pottery" you would expect her to read about it and know about it, but not necessary be able to make a pot like they did in the 6th century.
Ok, this bothers me. At it's simplest a doorknob is a single gear with it's teeth meshed into the bolt. Modern doorknobs can be slightly more complex but not much. Depending on the gun there could be several mechanisms and a chemical reaction to boot. Here's a good comparison. With no maintenance and regular use how long before a gun fails in one way or another (jams, misfires, etc)? A week? A month? Same thing with a doorknob and it'll last years, maybe even a decade or two.A Glock has 34 parts (http://www.glockworld.com/Content.aspx?cKey=Glock_Parts_Diagram_Topglock). A basic pin tumbler lock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pin_tumbler_lock) has 15+ in the core alone, not including the bolt and handle assembly (http://www.hometips.com/how-it-works/cylindrical-mortise-locksets.html). That's a fairly simple lock - I have a more complex version on the house.
Or the wizard could justand then practice it enough that it gets easier.(click to show/hide)
As stated before, a wizard with more control should have an easier time of it.
I fail to understand your point. We're not talking about using theory in game. We're talking about legitimately hexing the ever-loving hell out of things in game. Which I do suppose is a fair bit odd; hypotheticals within hypotheticals vs supposed reality within hyoptheticals.
From what I got from tutori's posts, he seemed to be insisting that Luccio could use a computer, given computers are her hobby, she has a lot of control, and that a purely theoretical interest wouldn't make any sense. I was countering his argument by arguing that Luccio never stated she ever used one, countered an inquiry into her hobby with an explanation that would not run contrary to a wizard's paradigm of screwing up technology, and cited an example of someone having a purely theoretical interest in something.I was simply stating that Luccio never denies using computers. She has categorically stated that she reads about them and I have stated that to extrapolate from that statement to say that she cannot use one is as illogical as saying that she can. The additional point about she having a lot of control (while I agree with this point) was not made by me.
What about a "line" of circles between the computer and the caster to "block" magic?
She has categorically stated that she reads about them and to extrapolate from that statement to say that she cannot use one is as illogical as saying that she can.
It is not illogical in any way: the dominant paradigm of mortal wizards in the setting is that they can't use computers. Therefore the default assumption, unless specified otherwise, is that a given mortal wizard can't use computers, or has enough difficulty as to make it extremely prohibitive and troublesome. The weight of evidence in the fiction is pretty clear, and it is fallacious logic to take this one line and twist it in the direction needed to justify Luccio = 1337 haxx0r.
Her interest in computers being purely theorectical is the most plausible explanation, you could apply Occam's Razor to this. But her write-up is also written from the perspective of someone whose source suffers to a great degree from an inability to make full use of technology.
I believe I have already addressed this.
I still think this is an example of the "Burden of Proof" (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html) fallacy (aka "Appeal to Ignorance"), in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side.If this thread was about the dominant paradigm of mortal wizards in the setting and someone brought up this issue, you would be right. But this thread is about alternatives, hence I am more inclined to place the burden of proof, as you put it, where I have.
You can only go so far with the rhetoric of deniability before it devolves into the old chestnut of "have you stopped beating your wife?"
Setting aside the Luccio chestnut and moving forward with a proposed Alternate Hexing option:
We seem to have two options on the table:
1) Discipline Check
Wizard is near technology. GM asks for a Discipline check. If successful, no hex. If failed, tech is hexed and Wizard gets a Fate Point. Player can still buy out of the Compel with another Fate Point.
Analysis: If used as an absolute rule, thishindersweakens a GM's ability to Compel poignant plot-complicating tech failures, unless they reserved the right to just Compel the hexing rather than asking for a Discipline check.
2) Random Hex Check
Roll Fudge dice whenever Wizard is around technology. On a -4, that tech is hexed.
Analysis: This method seems to imply that Fate Points and Compels on hexing would be removed from the picture, since it is taking it out of the hands of both player and GM. I can still see a Wizard spending a Fate Point to avoid a particular accidental hex, but it's not going to come up that often. I would recommend that the GM roll again when a Wizard begins to lose his cool or get distracted around tech which may have "passed" a hex check earlier that Scene.
What do folks think?
I like option 1.
Excellent - thank you. Do you feel a GM should be free to waive the roll and go straight to a Compel if he feels strongly enough about a given situation?