ParanetOnline

The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: ARedthorn on August 12, 2011, 08:42:43 AM

Title: Modified in reverse?
Post by: ARedthorn on August 12, 2011, 08:42:43 AM: I had a couple good questions I thought of tonight, and for starters, can a roll be modified by another skill in reverse, ever (ie, hindered if the supplementing skill is high, aided if low)...
I can't think of many applicable examples, and only one half-way decent one, so at best, it should be rare that this happens... I don't want to punish players for their hard-won or purchased strengths.

The example I have is a flash-bang tossed into a room. It's a zone special attack causing a stunned or dazed aspect... Everyone has to roll athletics to try and find cover... But could someone with a particularly high alertness be hindered by their sensitive senses being overloaded or by their extra alertness making them look right at the movement of the bouncing grenade? Could someone with a low alertness benefit from being less sensitive?
Not a great example, I know, but the only one I got right now... And I definitely want a lot of opinions from more veteran DFGM's...
Title: Re: Modified in reverse?
Post by: cybertier on August 12, 2011, 09:33:30 AM: What about sometimes ignorance is bliss.
If a character needs to do something dangerous and needs a conviction roll to do so, a high scholary, knowledge about how stupid/dangerous it is what he attemps, might increase his doubt of doing it. Like working on a cleaning crew for a damage nuclear plant. The more you know, the less you want to go there.

But to answer your question: I think it might make, very rarely, sense.
But it wouldn't be fun to be punished for a higher skill, so i wouldn't do it.

p.s.: Since i am new to the system: Is conviction the right roll to resist fear of doing something?
Title: Re: Modified in reverse?
Post by: Radijs on August 12, 2011, 10:41:49 AM: There are no standard rules for something like this. Personally I wouldn't do something like this but instead let it be covered by aspect.
For example someone's got an aspect: "Keen senses" or something of the like I could compel or invoke it to give him a disadvantage against the flashbang.

Simply penalizing him because he has a high rating in a skill doesn't sound kosher to me.
Title: Re: Modified in reverse?
Post by: Tallyrand on August 12, 2011, 11:42:23 AM: I'm with Radijis on this one, someone having a high skill should not be a penalty, but if he has an aspect then it becomes important to his character as both a strength and a weakness and you should use it with impunity.
Title: Re: Modified in reverse?
Post by: UmbraLux on August 12, 2011, 12:58:02 PM: Quote from: ARedthorn on August 12, 2011, 08:42:43 AM
The example I have is a flash-bang tossed into a room. It's a zone special attack causing a stunned or dazed aspect... Everyone has to roll athletics to try and find cover... But could someone with a particularly high alertness be hindered by their sensitive senses being overloaded or by their extra alertness making them look right at the movement of the bouncing grenade? Could someone with a low alertness benefit from being less sensitive?
Best handled by an aspect which the thrower tags and adds to his roll. The aspect could be an assessment by the thrower assuming the PC has an alertness related aspect. It could also be a declaration by either player (I'm looking around carefully.) or GM / NPC (Dropping it at alert guy's feet!).

Either way you'll get a +2 against the alert guy. Depending on when and how the aspect was set up it may or may not give the victim a fate point.
Title: Re: Modified in reverse?
Post by: Masurao on August 12, 2011, 03:49:36 PM: Perhaps you should look at it this way: Alertness is a skill, whether you may have a particular knack for it or simply have been forced to rely on your senses a lot, it is an acquired 'ability'. Social skills are like this too: some people are just naturally apt at communicating with others, in whatever way, but you can learn to do this as well. Perhaps you are a psychologist and you take a trained, intellectual approach to social interaction.

If you have eyes that are far better than anyone else's, it is either an aspect, a stunt or a power.

An aspect can be used by you or against you. In the case of Keen Senses you could use it to get +2 to you roll, claiming you saw the movement and instinctively reacted to the attack. If you have Eagle Eyes, but you rely on your high Athletics to dodge, the GM might compel the aspect and say that while you might dodge, your sensitive eyes would still be affected. If you pay it off, you manage to cover or close them in time, if you take the FP, you just weren't fast enough.

If it is a stunt, your bonus is probably limited to circumstance, such as barely-lit rooms or something similar, so I feel it has less chance of being used against you. A power, however, could easily be used against you: imagine being able to see infra-red or thermal, a flashbang would be hell on your eyes, especially if you can't 'shut your power off'.
Title: Re: Modified in reverse?
Post by: devonapple on August 12, 2011, 04:34:11 PM: I would not want to establish higher skill as a liability: those are the province of Compels against Aspects, as others have suggested. One could just as easily say that the one with higher Alertness was quick enough to see the threat coming and prepare for it.

Take, for example, an episode of "Due South." Our hero, Benton Fraser, a supercompetent paladin-Mountie from Canada, and accomplished tracker, routinely tastes evidence, even in urban environments, because he has refined that method of evidence-gathering. That backfires, only once (IIRC) when an antagonist who knew him inside and out chose to lace a piece of obvious evidence with a heavy tranquilizer before leaving it out in plain view, counting upon the Mountie to follow his usual tasting modus operandi. That sounded more like a Compel against some sense-related Aspect like "I Put Things in My Mouth" or "My Senses Are a Crimefighting Tool."
Title: Re: Modified in reverse?
Post by: gojj on August 12, 2011, 06:05:13 PM: Quote from: cybertier on August 12, 2011, 09:33:30 AM
p.s.: Since i am new to the system: Is conviction the right roll to resist fear of doing something?

No, Discipline is.

And I'm throwing my vote with the "No" crowd. Going back to your flash-bang example I think that a person's high alertness would help them there, not hinder them. They would have a higher chance of detecting the movement of the person about to toss the grenade, or if the can't see them they may here it being tossed. They would also have a higher chance of realizing what is was in that split second and know to look away and cover their ears.

I just can't think of a situation when having a higher skill would hinder you short of being compelled.
Title: Re: Modified in reverse?
Post by: jb.teller4 on August 12, 2011, 06:18:01 PM: Actually, there is an official example of this in the RAW:

Quote
"If being less wealthy is actually seen as a positive in the situation (perhaps to gain some “street cred” or what-have-you), then the rules for modifying may be turned around, creating a –1 to the roll if Resources is above a particular level."

-Page YS139, under the Money Talks trapping of the Resources skill

Edit: I wouldn't do this often, because I agree that high skills shouldn't generally be a penalty (compels of aspects are entirely different, of course, as has been mentioned above), but there is some official precedent for it.

-John B.
Title: Re: Modified in reverse?
Post by: ARedthorn on August 13, 2011, 12:28:52 AM: Thanks for catching that, JB... I wouldn't plan on using it much anyway--- frankly, I'd probably only use it if it were brought up by a player... that way, at least, they only have themselves to blame if it's negative... and if it's positive, and adds to the story, allowing it is part of being a good GM.

I've done some thinking about my original example, especially given the responses here...

Let's say I have that situation, and the player with the +5 Alertness and a related stunt or power is in the room... and the character background expresses that high alertness as representing keen or even supernatural senses... but it's not central enough to the character's identity to be worth one of their limited number of aspects...

Could I allow the player to (essentially as a free action) make a negative declaration roll on themselves to apply keen senses, then compel themselves (gaining an FP) to flub the roll?
Or better yet... could this qualify as a concession? Player offers to be taken out of the fight on basis of having such keen senses (a flash bang would make most people utterly useless for a round or two anyway- him... well, possibly the rest of the fight), and gain an appropriate number of fate points for the personal concession?
Title: Re: Modified in reverse?
Post by: UmbraLux on August 13, 2011, 12:46:57 AM: Quote from: ARedthorn on August 13, 2011, 12:28:52 AM
Could I allow the player to (essentially as a free action) make a negative declaration roll on themselves to apply keen senses, then compel themselves (gaining an FP) to flub the roll?
You could...or you, as GM, could simply make the declaration yourself and offer a fate point.

Quote
Or better yet... could this qualify as a concession? Player offers to be taken out of the fight on basis of having such keen senses (a flash bang would make most people utterly useless for a round or two anyway- him... well, possibly the rest of the fight), and gain an appropriate number of fate points for the personal concession?
It could be a concession, though it seems a premature one for most players. I don't believe they'll gain any fate points from it unless they take a consequence as part of the concession.
Title: Re: Modified in reverse?
Post by: sinker on August 13, 2011, 01:10:17 AM: Of note if you have someone with supernaturally sharp senses (like the alphas) then you could compel their high concept, since all powers are supposed to be linked to the high concept.
Title: Re: Modified in reverse?
Post by: Sanctaphrax on August 13, 2011, 07:23:38 PM: Conviction might sometimes be appropriate for resisting fear, if the fear is also an attack on your faith.

So if Nicodemus tries to intimidate Michael, Michael can (maybe) use Conviction to defend. But if Nicodemus tries to intimidate Thomas, Thomas cannot use Conviction to defend.