ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: ARedthorn on July 25, 2011, 03:53:13 PM
-
Asking an honest one here- since it's come up in another thread of mine- and probably should be it's own thread...
Neither I nor my players had ever considered the possibility that elements might be pointless, but it seems that's the dominant opinion hereabouts... ie, that since a block is a block is a block, any given element is as good as any given other element for any given effect whatsoever.
My GM, and me in the game I run (2 seperate groups, with me as the only intersect), tend to force any magic users to pay heed to the fluff of elements... for lots of reasons.
1- the books do, and this is a game world built on those books.
2- it helps limit mages and forces player creativity.
3- it makes mages worth playing. If, after all, I can use fire to do anything I might ever normally think of as fitting within the scope of Air/Water/Earth/Spirit, why would I ever spend an extra point on Evocation's multi-element versatility, when Channeling works just as well, cheaper?
Me, I read that side-bar on blocks to mean something completely different- ie, that direct damage shields, which is the only kind of block it references, can be effective regardless of element... I read it to mean that any element is capable of creating blocks, but that they would simply work differently. A spirit shield is raw force, fire would consume incoming attacks, water would dissolve them, earth would block or ground them, and air would deflect them... A block is a block is a block means that they all work even though they have their own distinct flavors, visuals, and possibly side effects.
Now, for direct damage and direct damage blocking, this is relatively straight-forward... flavor matters less in these cases... but when it comes to just about anything else, it matters a lot more. It stands to reason that bringing up a wall of fire in a door (block movement is a block is a block) might, you know, set the building on fire. Although I can't recall it specifically coming up in the core-book, it comes up in dresden often enough that the really neat thing about fire is that once you point it, and let it loose... it tends to be self-sustaining. The other less neat thing, is that it tends to sort of do it's own thing.
Now, mind, a good GM will probably give the player who tried it a fate point for the introduced complication (if it affects the player in any negative way, which it won't always)... and hopefully, a good player won't see that as a free supply of fate points.
But to me- it matters. If I were interested in running a game where that kind of fluff didn't come up at all, and elements didn't matter, we could play risk... not run a Story, with emphasis on the STORY.
Edit: almost forgot the question...
So then- how and when should/shouldn't elements matter to you in game, and why?
-
Element choices are very important. Though in the last discussion (and this one) you are going from one end of extremism to the other.
It is important to keep in mind that the elements *are very versatile* but *are still limited to effects under their purview*.
For example, making lightning would be very difficult to do with fire water and spirit, but easy to do with air, and probably slightly less easy to do with earth.
-
When I run a game I like to reward my players for creativity, so if my player can come up with a creative explanation/description as to why a certain element will work/function I will generally allow it (as long as it makes sense). But some times you've got to pull out the GM hammer and say no to that fire spell being able to put out the fire :P
-
Element choices are very important. Though in the last discussion (and this one) you are going from one end of extremism to the other.
It is important to keep in mind that the elements *are very versatile* but *are still limited to effects under their purview*.
For example, making lightning would be very difficult to do with fire water and spirit, but easy to do with air, and probably slightly less easy to do with earth.
Umm... this is actually more or less my standpoint... but when I tried to give a couple examples of occasions when those purview limits would/should come into play, the response suggested to me that I was entirely off my rocker to suggest that they ever would come into play, or require my players to pay heed to them. (Unless I'm misreading those replies).
There is really no good reason, from a mechanical perspective, to use more than one element for evocation.
(Barring deliberate and highly specific attempts by the GM to force you to use or not use a given element.)
So your players' situation is a bit odd.
In which case, there's really no good reason from a mechanical perspective to play a wizard, hence the essence of this thread.
I don't really know why the developers chose to include the elements however they repeat the following concept over and over. A block is a block is a block. Same applies to any other concept (attacks, maneuvers, aspects, counterspells). What this means is that every block prevents the thing it was meant to prevent unless broken. Every aspect provides a +2 when invoked. Every attack functions in exactly the same way. There are no "better" aspects, no blocks that are less effective at blocking, no counterspell that is more effective than another. You can surmise the developer's intent all you like but they felt that this concept was important enough to clearly state repeatedly, so I expect they felt it was important to the game core.
Even established members of this community don't know why there are different elements in the game... sounds like it needs discussion.
Established players on this community, with loads of experience with this game, have commented that I seem to be off my rocker. I'm not trying to be bullheaded, or pick fights... I respect those other perspectives and want to understand them... if I'm unique in my perspective, then it's probable that I'm also wrong in it... the only way to find out is to explore it.
-
When I run a game I like to reward my players for creativity, so if my player can come up with a creative explanation/description as to why a certain element will work/function I will generally allow it (as long as it makes sense). But some times you've got to pull out the GM hammer and say no to that fire spell being able to put out the fire :P
Actually, I think using a "Fire" evocation to put out a burning building would be perfectly legitimate. Not sure how you would model it, but fluff-wise, you could say that you were redistributing the heat within evenly across the entire street.
-
Elements are important for several reasons. Narrative effect, naturally; Wizard's themantically shouldn't, and aren't under the current system, equally skilled with every element. There are limitations as-to what each element can do, although these usually come down to the soft side of things; sound (air), light (spirit), mental effects (spirit), etc. Manoeuvres might also differ between the elements, or at least, give you a guideline as-to what is usual. Naturally inventive players (and just as importantly, inventive characters) might come up with interesting ways of doing things outside of an elements usual scope.
More over, elements can also act as aspects! At least, I deduce that from hints in the text, and run it as such. Might not actually be per RAW, but it seems to work. As such, compels can be thrown in to complicate things. "Oh, nice fire spell, shame about the flamable objects in the building..." This also means that in differentiating them, Assessments and Declarations are your friend. A block is a block is a block, but hey look, that block is specified to be using kinetic force to block moving objects; doesn't seem like it'd be much use against a flamethrower! Now you've an aspect to tag, to help you over-come the shield; and +2 is nothing to sneer at, it often makes up the difference. Or, you could try to tag for effect, inducing a compel, thus helping out in other ways.
Just remember, Wizard's specialised in elements learn to over-come such weaknesses. Fool them once, they might tweak their shield a little, like Harry did to make it more resistant to raw energies. Which would in essence, remove the aspect that had been discovered/created.
Just a few thoughts, hope it helps.
-
Yes but then this came up:
The restrictions you use for what elements are capable of are rather harsh, it seems to me. I would certainly let someone push something around with a jet of water or use spirit to disrupt the emotional energies that hold a spell together. And so on.
My experience suggests that most people do not restrict the elements as heavily as you. And I don't think that the rulebook is on your side either.
In essence, you have changed the rules. It is not surprising that the consistency of the related rules is affected negatively by this.
And in response you said:
On a related note:Water, specifically... hell no. Water magic isn't about projecting water even vaguely- water magic is entropy associations... you couldn't so much move the object as dissolve it.
Which is patently absurd :P.
This is why people were saying your interpretation on the versatility of the elements is too narrow. Shooting a jet of water with a water evocation is *abolutely* within the purview of the water element. I've seen people use the water element to condense water out of thin air and cause people to slip, to move snow, to freeze things, to pick up traces of blood, and other such things. These are all things water should be able to do fairly easily, but water wont be throwing out gouts of fire any time soon.
-
I think they will come into play at the very least, when taking aspects into account. A fire attack could invoke an aspect like "flammable", "puddle of gasoline", etc, that would do nothing for other attacks. On the other hand, an aspect like "dripping wet" might be invoked to help defend against a fire attack, but it would do nothing against any other element.
And then, as you said already, there are secondary effects and fallout, that will be different for every element.
And of course, the different elements will get you different consequences, when they inflict enough stress.
But some times you've got to pull out the GM hammer and say no to that fire spell being able to put out the fire
I have to disagree. A specialisation in fire magic does not have to only result in creating fire, it can also result in controlling fire. And if you don't control the fire directly, you could create sort of a fire bubble above it to burn all oxygen before it can reach the fire, so it will suffocate.
making lightning would be very difficult to do with fire water and spirit
Again, it all comes down to how the character understands the world and his magic.
Water magic can create and manipulate entropy, even more: lightning usually is created in clouds, which in return are composed of billions and billions of water molecules.
Fire might create enough heat to separate enough electrons from the molecules in the air to make it conductive for a nearby source of electricity to jumps to the target.
For Spirit, it might just be the way the magic manifests for this character. Sort of like the dark force lightning thing instead of just telekinesis.
Yes, sometimes it might require a lot of technobabble to work, and if the character does not have an appropriate background, I would of course deny it. But with the right setup, almost everything could work, and if a player can pull something out of their hat to save the day, I would go with the Rule of Cool and let him at it. That is, if the explanation as to why it should work makes sense. "I drench him in water, so he will burn to death" and explanations like that are, of course, nonsense.
-
These are all things water should be able to do fairly easily, but water wont be throwing out gouts of fire any time soon.
This brings up a question I have: Can Evocation be used to perform magic that combines 2 or more elements? Water won't make a gout of flame, but Using Earth to make pure Sodium and add water... Boom, fireball! I'm not advocating allowing something that technical, but something simpler, like Fire + Earth = Lava might be more in line with the Dresdenverse.
-
Koffey:
first off- the reference in the water section on shooting out a jet of water... was frankly something I overlooked. I don't know how, but my eyes completely glazed over for that sentence. Now that I've had it pointed out to me, I'm ok with it. Not entirely comfortable, since the fluff seems like it contradicts itself a little on water, but I can work around it. Water as I knew it from the books and from the RPG was explicitly not about actual water, but about the philosophical context as it were... erosion, change, decay. Seems the game writers decided to include a little literal in with it, and I can deal.
Text-book example of a misread on my part... and I took it back as soon as someone pointed it out.
My other two points still stand- if an established player thinks there's no mechanical advantage to multiple elements, and another doesn't even know why they bothered to put them in the game... then I'm thoroughly lost... because the whole reason my groups take the approach we do is to apply that advantage and give them a reason.
Like I said- my opinion and yours on this seem to be the same. It comes down to fluff, but fate is a system where fluff matters.
-
Elements have meaning.
That does not however mean that certain effects are prohibited "just because".
As long as you can describe an effect in terms of your element, you can use this element to create the effect.
Now, what is a valid description is of course open to debate, and only limited by the players' creativity.
If for your group there is no water throwing with water magic, that's valid too. Personally i don't think that's in keeping with the novels, but as long as all people around the table are on the same page about what's allowed and whats not i don't see a problem with it.
Edit: The Water example is obsolete, i know. But i'm too lazy to think up a different one ;)
However, i think we can agree that you will not be throwing fire, or creating windstorms by casting a Water Evocation. Or irrigating a garden with a Fire spell.
Elements give you justification for certain effects.
The technical part on the other hand is identical for all of them. Once placed, an aspect created with Water, is just as effective as one created with Fire.
There also is one part where elemental differences have a technical effect, and that's catches. Fire evocation is a lot more effective than a Kinetic blast against a Black Court Vamp for example.
-
You have to keep in mind that there are two sides to this; the mechanical side and the thematic side.
Mechanically all elements do the exact same things in the exact same way with no difference between them. They all attack, maneuver or block and they are all equally good at doing those things. There is no mechanical difference between a fire maneuver and an air maneuver, or a spirit block and an earth block.
Thematically they have differences. Thematically the air maneuvers will be about movement, the fire maneuvers about fear of damage, the earth maneuvers about physical impediments, the water maneuvers about weakness or change. But mechanically these all provide a +2 to whatever I'm doing.
In the other thread you spoke about moving something with air. Can I do that with fire? Not without a very creative solution (I'm thinking vacuums, but that's beside the point). But what am I doing when I move something with air? Am I trying to actually move something? We are likely not in conflict and it can be done via thaumaturgy. Am I trying to make that something an impediment to attacks or anything else? Then I'm blocking, which can be done just as effectively in other ways with other elements. Am I trying to assist or influence a future action? I'm maneuvering, which can be done just as effectively in other ways with other elements.
This is the point. Mechanically there is no difference between elements. If that bothers you, then you're using the wrong system, because this system is all about the theme and the narration over mechanics. If you're setting the narration above mechanics than this a complete non-issue.
-
This brings up a question I have: Can Evocation be used to perform magic that combines 2 or more elements? Water won't make a gout of flame, but Using Earth to make pure Sodium and add water... Boom, fireball! I'm not advocating allowing something that technical, but something simpler, like Fire + Earth = Lava might be more in line with the Dresdenverse.
Harry did something like it in WN. He created a wall of fire and combined it with earth magic to create a wall of fire that would be kept up by earth stability for a longer time without him having to keep pouring power into it. Mechanically, it would probably just be a declaration to be able to control 2 more shifts put into the duration of the spell. It is however not possible to add up the different specialisations or foci to boost your double element spells.
-
Also something I forgot. You asked why build a wizard if a focused practitioner is stronger, and the answer is that they aren't. A focused practitioner can't take any specializations and even if they could they would have a max pyramid of +2,+1. They are completely limited by their lore and their foci.
Of course that doesn't answer why you wouldn't specialize in one element as a wizard, but then again I would think you would. Seems like a good idea to me.
-
My other two points still stand- if an established player thinks there's no mechanical advantage to multiple elements, and another doesn't even know why they bothered to put them in the game... then I'm thoroughly lost... because the whole reason my groups take the approach we do is to apply that advantage and give them a reason.
Mechanically, as I see it, the advantage to multiple elements comes from the narrative possibilities put before the players. If you have a team of Fire Channelers, for example, They're going to either get their butts handed to them or do a lot of damage to themselves if sent to retrieve an object from a section of the NeverNever with the "Combustible Mists" aspect, where Fire magic will cause a catastrophic chain reaction, and getting into a fight there may result in the characters avoiding use of their main defense and offense. Yeah, the one that casts the Fire-based block may get the fate point for starting the explosion, but the whole team would probably be conceding in short order.
Another advantage involves using Declarations or Assessments to gain Aspects that can be tagged for advantage. Fire and Earth magic may both do the same thing mechanically, damage-wise, but guess which one gets the +2 to get through the wall with the "Solid Stone" aspect on it?
The imaginative use of aspects can make the difference in showcasing the advantages that you (Or your players) don't see in Evocation's flexibility.
-
Actually, I think using a "Fire" evocation to put out a burning building would be perfectly legitimate. Not sure how you would model it, but fluff-wise, you could say that you were redistributing the heat within evenly across the entire street.
Heck, Dresden even does something like this to freeze a patch of a lake, with a very similar justification (channeling the ambient heat of the water AWAY rapidly).
-
I vaguely remember Sanctaphrax once telling me that there was a RAW reason why that's harder to do with fire than it is with water, but now I don't remember what it was, and going back though my posts seems daunting now....
-
All in all, it seems like I am on the same page as everyone else... just the last thread ended up derailing pretty badly. Meh. Happens.
The reason I love DFRPG is BECAUSE it makes fluff/visual/theme/narration has a defined place in the game, instead of just being something the GM has to hand-wave. For me and mine, that makes it part of the mechanics, so the flavor matters mechanically- it has distinct reasons for existing, even if those reasons are largely left to the group to figure out (too many possibilities to lay out in Core, really, so I get it).
-
I think one should also remember that elements are part of how the wizard views his magic. You could have wood and metal elements, as long as you can explain how it would work in your character's philosophy (and the mechanics, of course).
-
Directly manipulating literal water isn't fluff that evil hat plopped into the system.
In Turncoat during the sanctum invocation (pg 272-273 hardcover) Harry reached underground to tap the water from a stream and blocked Demonreach's fire attack with a curtain of water.
-
You know, I probably phrased the quoted post too strongly. It seems that I seemed rather aggressive.
There are situations where an element is not useful. But they are really rare in my experience, and they may qualify as compels.
I wouldn't expect them to occur without the GM creating them intentionally.
Anyway, Evocation is still better than Channeling. I'll try to find the old "Is Channeling Useless" thread.
I'd allow mixed elements as long as nobody tried to stack specializations.
EDIT: Found the thread. It seems I misremembered the name. http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23028.0.html (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23028.0.html)
-
So then- how and when should/shouldn't elements matter to you in game, and why?
My take on why elements matter: Elements are aspects. Or at least can be. A simple Declaration I'm a Practiced Fire Mage would get you an aspect to tag for a hotter fire spell. It could also be a compel "Your Fire Spell Is Going to Start a Fire". It could even be a declaration by the victim for a bonus on defense - "Fire Doesn't Hurt Demons From Below".
It's basically similar to saying each element only does X things. Except using aspects to grant appropriate bonuses instead of drawing arbitrary lines. Essentially, I'm saying any magic can do anything...but some will be better at a given thing than others. Considering declarations can be used by either victim or attacker, choosing the best element can be a four shift power swing. Not something to sneeze at.
-
There are things the other elements can't do like stoping air flow a round an enemy to strangel them or bending light with light magic to make a vail. and using water to make a vail would also reqier more contrartastion on the humitaty or mist around you and and now how to minipulat refraction, some gm's may make you pay more for the effect then what would be needed for something alot more basic.
-
I fail to see how you can do like...telekinesis with fire. Fire is good at doing things with fire. You can narrow it, remove it, lots of it, little of it, but at the end of the day you're moving heat around. Air you can do a lot with as well...remove it from most things, and they fall apart, but unless there's something to keep it from running back in again, like when you're outdoors, that's gonna be tough. You can't do ANYTHING with ANYTHING unless you get really creative, and the more intricate things get, the more you have to stretch to make your element do what you need it to do, ups the difficulty of the spell. I mean, sure, maybe you can do some sort of delicate spell where you just sorta move heat around creating some sort of warm air cushion that pushes your coffee cup to you but...wouldn't that just be really damned hard? Harry grabs his staff (heh) with wind, but could he do that with his coffee cup and not spill it?
-
Or to ask a different way, is there a difference, mechanically between a fist and a knife if they do the same damage?
-
Or to ask a different way, is there a difference, mechanically between a fist and a knife if they do the same damage?
Can't throw a Fist 1 zone away
can't block a weapons attack with a fist without a special stunt
harder to cause a bleeding-related consequence with a fist ("Which way did he go?" "His blood's o the ground, Let's do a quick divination ritual to find out!")
Harder to cause self-inflicted bleeding with a fist ("I need a mild consequence to help power this spell, Quick, Punch me in the nose!")
and finally,
If on "Let's Make a Deal," the host asks if anyone in the audience has a knife, your fist won't help you win that dinette set!
-
I fail to see how you can do like...telekinesis with fire.
A rocket uses fire. Hot air balloons rise and fall because of fire. Even a jet uses heated air.
Is it ideal? No...hence the possibility for compels (It's on Fire!) and declarations which reduce the strength of the spell.
Harry grabs his staff (heh) with wind, but could he do that with his coffee cup and not spill it?
Probably not and, if it mattered to the story, that would be an excellent compel!
Or to ask a different way, is there a difference, mechanically between a fist and a knife if they do the same damage?
Mechanically? Very little difference. Computerking points a few of the differences out.
But FATE isn't about simulating reality. It builds a narrative. And there's a significant difference in the narrative...and in the consequences likely to be taken.
-
Fire is different from Earth in the same way Rapport is different from Intimidation. You could probably solve the problem either way, but you'll have to come up with a different plan, and the fallout might be flavored differently.
As with aspects, character abilities (assuming identical shifts) should be equivalent but not totally interchangeable.
-
Can't throw a Fist 1 zone away
I beg to differ. You can't throw your own fist. It's totally possible to throw someone else's fist. Or I suppose any fist so long as you're willing to sever it. ;D
-
I beg to differ. You can't throw your own fist. It's totally possible to throw someone else's fist. Or I suppose any fist so long as you're willing to sever it. ;D
Or if you're Rayman (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a0/Rayman_Coverart.png).
-
Anyway, Evocation is still better than Channeling. I'll try to find the old "Is Channeling Useless" thread.
...
EDIT: Found the thread. It seems I misremembered the name. http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23028.0.html (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23028.0.html)
Many thanks for that- covers a lot of what I've been thinking about. And no big, I got kinda bullheaded too.
-
Directly manipulating literal water isn't fluff that evil hat plopped into the system.
In Turncoat during the sanctum invocation (pg 272-273 hardcover) Harry reached underground to tap the water from a stream and blocked Demonreach's fire attack with a curtain of water.
I had always assumed that he was using earth magic to force the water to the surface, given that he's never had any sort of ability with water. He's used earth before, and it could do that.
Nevertheless, I'm good with direct use of water, to some degree. Not sure flowing water in any decent amount wouldn't ground even water magic out, but I'm talking rivers here.
-
Mortal Magic in general is grounded out by running water, regardless of element. That is how i run it.
Its one of the many mysterious things about magic, that Water-Magic does not ground itself out, yet is still grounded out by normal running water. Don't ask why... it just is like that.
(that is what i read out of the marginalia on the bottom left of YS:255)
-
Yes but then this came up:
And in response you said:
Which is patently absurd :P.
This is why people were saying your interpretation on the versatility of the elements is too narrow. Shooting a jet of water with a water evocation is *abolutely* within the purview of the water element. I've seen people use the water element to condense water out of thin air and cause people to slip, to move snow, to freeze things, to pick up traces of blood, and other such things. These are all things water should be able to do fairly easily, but water wont be throwing out gouts of fire any time soon.
I completely agree.
Water mages can also make spikes of ice shoot at things, and I would even let a character form a blade of ice out of the condensation in the air.
I like to make up rules on the fly that make sense, so I'd allow the ice mage to cast the spell as a 3 shift evocation, and each additional shift would give the blade 2 actions of life. Another 2 shifts could be spent to raise the weapon value by 1.
I would not allow a fire mage to do quite the same thing.
-
I completely agree.
Water mages can also make spikes of ice shoot at things, and I would even let a character form a blade of ice out of the condensation in the air.
I like to make up rules on the fly that make sense, so I'd allow the ice mage to cast the spell as a 3 shift evocation, and each additional shift would give the blade 2 actions of life. Another 2 shifts could be spent to raise the weapon value by 1.
I would not allow a fire mage to do quite the same thing.
But that negates the option of a Sword of Flaming Awesome, a invisible air blade, a wind edged dagger or a stone mace which would be equally awesome and doable.
-
But that negates the option of a Sword of Flaming Awesome, a invisible air blade, a wind edged dagger or a stone mace which would be equally awesome and doable.
I suppose the player could always convince me otherwise... :P
-
I wouldn't see a problem with an evocation creating a temporary weapon, or overwriting an existing one (but not enhancing it), with its shifts being split between value and duration. It's not generally going to be more efficient than just using that same action (and stress box) to blast the guy.
-
Sure, rockets are propelled by fire. They are also fire proof. Also, what if it's a tea cup? How you gonna not spill your tea? Or set the staff or rod on fire? They are made of wood. "But what if they're not?" But what if they're not yours?
All precisely why one element can't do everything.
A rocket uses fire. Hot air balloons rise and fall because of fire. Even a jet uses heated air.
Is it ideal? No...hence the possibility for compels (It's on Fire!) and declarations which reduce the strength of the spell.
Probably not and, if it mattered to the story, that would be an excellent compel!
Mechanically? Very little difference. Computerking points a few of the differences out.
But FATE isn't about simulating reality. It builds a narrative. And there's a significant difference in the narrative...and in the consequences likely to be taken.