ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Oriande on March 27, 2011, 08:43:46 PM
-
So… Two player characters encounter an unknown threat and engage in combat. The opponent appears able to shrug off their initial attacks. One player then begins to vary his approach while still relying on the same ability. The other, proceeds to repeat the same action, over and over, evidently convinced that all he needs is the right roll and grows frustrated when this is not met with success. What should I do?
I don’t want to stop the game to suggest that he try something else. There is a lot of tension at this point and the other players are all caught up in the action. Also, I don’t really feel that I should have to explain the opponent’s abilities and defenses. I want the PC’s to figure them out on their own.
-
Let it eat his face
Do your descriptions make it clear the PC is ineffective?
-
inflict a consequence on each of them, then use those consequences to compel them to realize that this is a losing battle, and that they need to book it out of there
allow them to concede (they're battered and bruised, maybe toss in an extra consequence if they you think they're getting off easy, but they manage to escape), give them each a fate point for any consequences they took in that fight past the ones you just compelled (don't give them a fate point for the same consequence twice, since you're basically just paying them in advance with this whole compel to concede scheme)
-
If the player just doesn´t know the rules well enough to know that his move is futile, you should let him know.
If he does (or should, because you´ve been playing DF long enough) and just doesn´t want to try and think up another move, then it´s his funeral.
-
Make sure to let the second player know that no stress is being dealt.
-
So… Two player characters encounter an unknown threat and engage in combat. The opponent appears able to shrug off their initial attacks. One player then begins to vary his approach while still relying on the same ability. The other, proceeds to repeat the same action, over and over, evidently convinced that all he needs is the right roll and grows frustrated when this is not met with success. What should I do?
I don’t want to stop the game to suggest that he try something else. There is a lot of tension at this point and the other players are all caught up in the action. Also, I don’t really feel that I should have to explain the opponent’s abilities and defenses. I want the PC’s to figure them out on their own.
Work on your descriptions. "You land a perfect strike to the neck but your sword scrapes ineffectively across the armored scales." is more to the point than "No damage, next!". Basically you want to make two things obvious, 1) it was a great blow that would have severely hurt lesser foes and 2) it was so ineffective the guy doesn't even consider him a threat. Having one use an obviously invokeable Maneuver like "Concentrating on <effective guy>" can make the point even blunter...while setting up a bonus! 8)
-
Work on your descriptions. "You land a perfect strike to the neck but your sword scrapes ineffectively across the armored scales." is more to the point than "No damage, next!".
Actually, as the persistent attacks were all gun shots it was more of "Alright, you hit him square in the torso. He rocks back about half a pace and you see his head turn in your direction." which led to three more rounds (no pun intended) of ineffective gunfire.
Meanwhile, the Focused Practitioner, having failed to produce much reaction from a six shift blast of wind, decided to change his tactics. He aimed his next shot at the side of the path and angled it to kick up dust and debris. This bought them a round free of retaliation and another bit of information as they saw a snake-like tongue flicker out to clear his/its eyes.
This player then proceeded to grab a handful of sharp pebbles etc. and launch them directly at the nearer eye. After that, he aimed a telekinetic burst, not at the opponent, but at the structure next to him -- a sort of Wicked Witch of the West solution; although he did not drop an entire house on it – just a decorative wooden beam and some plaster. ;D
And all this time, the other player continued to empty a clip. One of us is definitely missing something.
-
Usually when players do stuff like that it's because they just can't think of anything else to do.
-
Usually when players do stuff like that it's because they just can't think of anything else to do.
Pretty much what I was thinking.
You could try and create some sort of "mortal spellbook" with him, effectively giving him some ideas of what to do with his skills and stunts. Maybe if he gets started in the right direction he will start to think of unusual things himself. Don't do it ingame, take half an hour before you play, maybe let every player contribute, and you are going to have a whole lot of maneuvers to do for him, so he will have a better understanding of what his character is capable of. Especially explain the power of maneuvers to him, because that is something most players seem to neglect when they want to take something down.
Once you are in a scene like that, depending on the opponent, he might make a comment like "Your tiny weapons are nothing to me, ape.", telling him very clearly, that a different approach might be better suited in this situation.
-
Actually, as the persistent attacks were all gun shots it was more of "Alright, you hit him square in the torso. He rocks back about half a pace and you see his head turn in your direction." which led to three more rounds (no pun intended) of ineffective gunfire.
<snip>
And all this time, the other player continued to empty a clip. One of us is definitely missing something.
Your description sounds good, but may not be obvious enough for someone fixated on using his primary / normal attack. I'd suggest something along the lines of "You hit him square in the torso opening gaping wounds...which immediately close as if nothing harmed him." or equivalent. Sometimes you simply have to make it inescapably obvious that repeating the same action won't have a different effect.
We all tend to have moments of 'solution lock' - where we've decided the solution already and find it difficult to react creatively. That may bring up another point - how often has this character had to solve problems with something other than a gun? Perhaps he simply needs to break the 'shoot first' habit...
-
Your description sounds good, but may not be obvious enough for someone fixated on using his primary / normal attack. I'd suggest something along the lines of "You hit him square in the torso opening gaping wounds...which immediately close as if nothing harmed him." or equivalent.
Might try a page straight from Superman Returns, and have one of those bullets hit the big bad straight in the eye and bounce right off, if you want to really drive it home.
-
The problem with guns is that, if your opponent is immune to the damage they deal, it is really hard to justify other actions with them; OK, you want to block and lay down suppression fire. Now, why would the bullet-immune enemy bother to take cover at all?
-
An autofire based block won't work against a bullet-immune foe. The book points that out using the Loup Garou as an example. There are still a few maneuvers you can do - anything indirect. Fire at the floor to cause 'Unsure Footing', at the lights to cause 'Darkness', at cleaning supplies for a 'Slippery Floor', etc.
Even so, there are times it may be better to put the gun aside and do something else. One more argument against overly specialized characters.
-
Actually, as the persistent attacks were all gun shots it was more of "Alright, you hit him square in the torso. He rocks back about half a pace and you see his head turn in your direction." which led to three more rounds (no pun intended) of ineffective gunfire.
And all this time, the other player continued to empty a clip. One of us is definitely missing something.
Don't call for a dice roll if the gun is inneffective. Just narrate him emptying his entire clip into the thing without result. Then I would have asked "What do you do now?" and let him make whatever action he wanted to try at that point.
-
Agreed. This is something I think not a lot of GMs think about, but it helps keep the pace quick and really does make things clear to the players. If the consequences of the action will not change, regardless of how well or how poorly it's done (in this case, he will hit it and draw it's attention with no other effect, or he'll miss and draw it's attention with no other effect) then there's no real reason to have them roll. Just narrate it and move on. Then you don't have the player trying for the perfect roll, because you've made it clear that there is no practical difference between a -4 and a +4.
-
I'd even go one further and allow him to take his 'real' turn after he unloads all the bullets and realizes they did nothing. The bullets are just cool color for the story at that point, he should still get to take action.
-
I think there's a dangerous precedent, there, if it's not implement very carefully.
-
Good thing games do not work like courts of law then. ;)
-
I think there's a dangerous precedent, there, if it's not implement very carefully.
It's funny, but I'm not afraid of this precedent. Letting people narrate awesome, evocative color that has no real effect isn't dangerous. Making people choose between adding awesome narration and doing something mechanically useful, seems unwise. And making them repeatedly roll for stuff that doesn't matter is right out.
Good thing games do not work like courts of law then. ;)
:D
-
Mostly the danger that I see is in applying that to the first exchange of gunfire, where they're just finding out that their preferred tactic isn't going to work. After that, sure, toss in whatever narration you want that the group thinks sounds cool.
It's something of a short step from 'these bullets aren't doing any good' to 'well, apparently, I can't aim worth s***', and there lies potential for game-breaking
-
I'd even go one further and allow him to take his 'real' turn after he unloads all the bullets and realizes they did nothing. The bullets are just cool color for the story at that point, he should still get to take action.
Isn't this almost an assessment action? It starts out as an attack, sure, but all it does is reveal the aspect "bulletproof" on the target, so that might be, what is happening here.
-
First I'd let him roll until he hit it so maybe he'd figure out it was bulletproof on his own and try something else.
Next if he continued to do the same thing I wouldn't even have him roll and I might make a hint at something *I* think would be useful, like...
The bullet ricochets off his shoulder and you hear it impact the brass chandelier above his head as it sways back and forth.
Make it more obvious at your discretion but that would be enough for most of my players to grin and bring it crashing down on his head.
-
"You fire, and you hit! You can see the hole in his shirt right where his heart should be... but there's not a drop of blood. He doesn't even blink. It looks like bullets don't hurt this guy and that you should think of something else."
If they want to keep firing, "You fire your gun dry and the bullets are as effective as your first shot. What do you want to do with your action?"
Nothing beats being really blunt.
-
On the other hand, maybe it is time for bigger guns and special ammo. A few things to consider;
1) Elephant gun. It is old tech by now but a 34mm flatpoint round with a muzzle energy of 27.000j (twice that of a .50 BMG) is gonna spell bad news to most things it hits. Plus, many elephant guns are old enough not to suffer hexing.
2) Zeliska revolver with.600 Overkill rounds. Not as much firepower as a big elephant gun - but still outstrips a .45 by nearly an order of magnitude. And it is still old tech.
3) Silver-coated steel-jacket hollowpoints filled with holy oil. Vs shapeshifters, the silver coating does at least some damage before expanding. Vs fae, the silver coating fractures as the bullet expands and now the fae has a sizable chunk of steel in their body. Vs demons/undead, the holy oil might do at least some good. Of course, this configuration should be applied to whatever really large bullets you are firing out of really big guns.
-
Nothing beats being really blunt.
I definately should have had him stop rolling dice and either asked the other player what he wanted to do while the first continued to empty his clip or else asked him what he wanted to do after it was empty during the first round/sequence of play.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the answer would be; "I slap another clip into my gun and continue fireing."
Also, as the gamemaster, I clearly am/was thinking too much in terms of other table-top RPGs where the characters' action are divided into "rounds" which are a set incerment of time, and each player in turn states what his or her character is doing at that precise moment.
I think that the FATE/Dresden system is meant to be more fluid than that and I will have to pay better attention to adapt.
-
On the other hand, maybe it is time for bigger guns and special ammo.
Wrong! It is ALWAYS time for bigger guns and special ammo! :)
On a serious note, however, Belial's absolutely right. Through Contacts, Resources, Burglary, Craftmanship, and other possibly-applicable skills, a gunman can buy/steal/make something to let them use their apex skill on a beastie. At least they SHOULD be able to.
Can I ask what you expected the shooter to do once he emptied his mag on the monster? Would any Weapon rating be enough to harm it (ie, did it have Physical Immunity)? Because enough stacked maneuvers and the right ammo will fuck up anyone's day. Ask Kincaid.
-
Wrong! It is ALWAYS time for bigger guns and special ammo! :)
On a serious note, however, Belial's absolutely right. Through Contacts, Resources, Burglary, Craftmanship, and other possibly-applicable skills, a gunman can buy/steal/make something to let them use their apex skill on a beastie. At least they SHOULD be able to.
Can I ask what you expected the shooter to do once he emptied his mag on the monster? Would any Weapon rating be enough to harm it (ie, did it have Physical Immunity)? Because enough stacked maneuvers and the right ammo will fuck up anyone's day. Ask Kincaid.
I have but one point on where this line of thought ends: ;D
(http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f23/bibliophile20/Gamer/429881630_78fed14042_o-1.jpg)
There's a reason mortals are collectively both before-dinner appetizers and the sleeping giant in the Dresdenverse...
-
I definately should have had him stop rolling dice and either asked the other player what he wanted to do while the first continued to empty his clip or else aked him what he wanted to do after it was empty during the first round/sequence of play.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the answer would be; "I slap another clip into my gun and continue fireing."
"Okay, you put in another mag and burn through the whole thing. No, don't touch your dice. Bullets clearly don't do anything to this guy. What do you do with your action?"
If this continues, follow with, "Dude, he's immune to bullets. They don't do anything. You could literally continue firing bullets until the gun wears out and it wouldn't accomplish anything. What you're doing is like trying to cut a granite boulder in half with a pocket knife. If you just want to keep shooting I'm going to skip your turn. Do you want to do anything with your action?"
-
Police refer to this as the "3-second Rule", and try to hammer it in during training. Basically, in a fight, when whatever you doing doesn't work for 3 seconds, switch to something else. The reason police trainers emphasize this so much is because most people do exactly the opposite.
-
I'm not sure this is always appropriate, but I might be inclined to start "reframing" those Gun rolls into Maneuvers - on behalf of the player - and narrate the effect of the gunfire in terms of the distraction it is causing. I also liked the suggestion of simply reframing those Guns checks into Assessment actions. It may be seen as good guidance, or be mistaken for tactical railroading, depending on the player's attitude.
When my players get into a Hammer-Nail tactical dead-end like that, I do start suggesting alternate actions. They take it well, but each player is going to be different.
-
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the answer would be; "I slap another clip into my gun and continue fireing."
At this point it is also within your bounds to start compelling the character into doing something else. look at his aspects and figure one that can make him do something anything else and it may jump start him into a different mindset.
Player: I fire the gun.... AGAIN!.... HARDER!... AND MORE EXTREME LIKE!... WHILE SCREAMING!.. AND PLAYING METAL MUSIC!.. WITH A MEAN LOOK ON MY FACE!
Me: Does your high aspect contain the phrase "Mentally handicapped"? No then I compel you to do something not mentally handicapped.
-
So… Two player characters encounter an unknown threat and engage in combat. The opponent appears able to shrug off their initial attacks. One player then begins to vary his approach while still relying on the same ability. The other, proceeds to repeat the same action, over and over, evidently convinced that all he needs is the right roll and grows frustrated when this is not met with success. What should I do?
I don’t want to stop the game to suggest that he try something else. There is a lot of tension at this point and the other players are all caught up in the action. Also, I don’t really feel that I should have to explain the opponent’s abilities and defenses. I want the PC’s to figure them out on their own.
Is the monster explicitly immune to bullets? Or could the player possibly line up enough targeting Aspects to get past its Armor?
-
Through Contacts, Resources, Burglary, Craftmanship, and other possibly-applicable skills, a gunman can buy/steal/make something to let them use their apex skill on a beastie. At least they SHOULD be able to.
Can I ask what you expected the shooter to do once he emptied his mag on the monster? Would any Weapon rating be enough to harm it (ie, did it have Physical Immunity)? Because enough stacked maneuvers and the right ammo will fuck up anyone's day. Ask Kincaid.
You are right, of coarse. However, in this case just fireing more rounds of the same ammunition, with the same guns skill, using the same semi-automatic pistol wasn't going to change anything. Would it matter if a hired hitter fired two or even twelve rounds into Harry's leather duster?
As for what I expected him to do... I'm not sure. I guess I was hoping for; "What IS that thing?" and "Why could my friend take out an eye with a jagged piece of flint?" or maybe just that he would act more like a True Believer -- he had Holy Water, time to pray etc. -- and less like a GTM.
-
I'm not sure this is always appropriate, but I might be inclined to start "reframing" those Gun rolls into Maneuvers - on behalf of the player - and narrate the effect of the gunfire in terms of the distraction it is causing. I also liked the suggestion of simply reframing those Guns checks into Assessment actions. It may be seen as good guidance, or be mistaken for tactical railroading, depending on the player's attitude.
I'm always leery about subverting the players' intentions. If the player is choosing to make Guns based attacks, that player clearly wants to inflect Stress and eventually Take Out the target (or perhaps stop at an acceptable Concession). I might offer to change the action to a Maneuver or the like, but I'd never just do it. That strikes me as disrespectful of the player's right to make their own decisions.
-
I'm always leery about subverting the players' intentions. If the player is choosing to make Guns based attacks, that player clearly wants to inflect Stress and eventually Take Out the target (or perhaps stop at an acceptable Concession). I might offer to change the action to a Maneuver or the like, but I'd never just do it. That strikes me as disrespectful of the player's right to make their own decisions.
I certainly appreciate that - there is one textual example, though, when Harry and Billy are chatting in the sidebar, and Harry complains about a Fists attack that only hits, but not enough to cause Stress. Billy suggests that it instead be retroactively converted to a Maneuver.
Perhaps a compromise would be something like "You hit, but deal no damage. May I offer you the option to convert your action into a Maneuver? It's not getting hurt, but you could opt to be 'Distracting' it, or 'Drawing its Attention to You'?"
-
Offering options is almost always preferable to mandating results.
-
Go the route of the Gazebo story.
-
Go the route of the Gazebo story.
Could the Gazebo Concede and get some Fate Points?
-
The Gazebo fights to the death!
-
Nah, it distracts you till the flying buttress attacks from above.
-
Offering options is almost always preferable to mandating results.
*ding!* We have a winner!
-
Go the route of the Gazebo story.
Tempting.... although I would then need to define the equivalent of a “fire casting mage”. Remember, I didn’t want to just tell them “Reptile Man’s” catch/defenses. ;D
-
Tempting.... although I would then need to define the equivalent of a “fire casting mage”. Remember, I didn’t want to just tell them “Reptile Man’s” catch/defenses. ;D
One option: see if there is an Aspect that you can Compel to "accidentally" introduce some sort of fire to the scene. Maybe take a failed spell roll as an opportunity to Compel the spellcaster to cause Fallout instead of taking Backlash, and light up that battlefield. Then you can have the monster shy away from it or give some other tell.
-
Another thing to consider is that unlike other games the options in DFRPG are not limited to win or die. It is perfectly acceptable as a GM in Dresden to have the players struggle futilely against something for a bit, then ask for a concession and have the players come back to it from a different angle with more preparation. You don't have to hand the players the solution, just so that they don't die.
-
The phrase "quit it, that tickles!" as spoken by the baddie comes to mind.
or have the enemy call time out to the bewildered guy actually varrying his attack then saunter over and say "seriously, it didn't work the first four dozen times you did it why the hell would it work the next four billion. TIME IN !" if possible deliver the line in stewie griffin speak.
-
Harry's first meeting with Nicodemus is actually a great example of a situation almost identical to this one. NPC-cameo-of-the-moment empties a pistol into him from only a meter or two away. She doesn't miss a single shot. Spots of blood bloom on his chest. He stands, annoyed, remarks on her lack of manners, and then, as she continues to fire, motions for her to hurry things along, because he has business to take care of, and her shooting him is just downright annoying. But not threatening.
-
Actually, as the persistent attacks were all gun shots it was more of "Alright, you hit him square in the torso. He rocks back about half a pace and you see his head turn in your direction." which led to three more rounds (no pun intended) of ineffective gunfire.
He probably should have gotten that but you can still be more clear. After all the torso isn't necessarily a weak point. You could describe how the attack hits his neck, his open mouth or his eye. If his chest is bullet proof shooting him in the eye could still have an effects. If his eyeballs are bullet proof it's time to run or change tactics.
-
YS 186-187: "If a character spends more than one fate point, on a successful attack only to discover you are completely immune to it, that character should be refunded all but one point."
I'm not sure of this applies (or has been covered already) but I just came across this in my own research.