[+1] Corrupting Influence. The One Ring slowly takes over the mind of its wearer. Treat as Feeding Dependency, except that the wearer may not recover his Hunger stress by any means.
Add Wizard's Constitution, and I think you've got it spot on Sancta... after all, Bilbo got at least an extra couple decades out of it, and Golum a few hundred years... mind, they were decidedly worse for wear at that point, but...
One Ring To Rule Them All is at the very least worded incorrectly. Players can never 'inflict compels' on any others' characters, but only ever invoke-for-effect to trigger a compel that is then adjudicated by the GM (who serves as arbiter over, among other things, what is a reasonable compel).
assigns the consequence "you must obey me" to the Ringwriath in question.
maybe even the 3, but elves are studly enough to be able to afford the cost hike?
2) I think that the combination of Corrupting Influence and Demonic Co-pilot both hitting the unrecoverable hunger track is too much. Instead, have Demonic Co-pilot hitting the hunger track, and simplify Corrupting Influence:
[+1] Corrupting Influence. The One Ring slowly takes over the mind of its wearer. The wearer may not recover the Hunger stress cause by Demonic Co-pilot by any means.
2b) Another option to consider is to use a 'Corruption' stress track instead of the Hunger track. This would be basically a cosmetic change.
2c) When taking stress from this power, the bearer of the One Ring may choose to accept a point of Debt to the Ring; this reduces stress taken by 2 in much the same way taking a minor consequence would. (Note: a point of Debt is almost the same as a minor consequence in the sense that it results in a 'free' compel, but Debt allows for more flexibility in terms of accumulation and duration.)
3) Change the 'One Ring To Rule Them All' power as follows:
[-2?] One Ring To Rule Them All. If the bearer of any of the Lesser Rings is ever in the presence of the bearer of the One Ring, the bearer of the Lesser Ring's aspect that relates to their possession of the Lesser Ring is treated as though it was worded 'My will belongs to the One Ring' until he is able to seperate himself from the One Ring's presence. Any time the bearer of the One Ring inflicts a mental consequence against any bearer of a Lesser Ring, he may always dictate that the consequence be worded 'My will belongs to the One Ring'. Note that this power does not grant any special ability to inflict mental stress (though powerful bearers of the One Ring will often possess other powers that enable them to do so), and that such consequences are otherwise treated as normal mental consequences and can be recovered from normally.
While this would likely be a noticeable improvement, I still feel that it would undervalue the unrecoverable stress.How so? Under my suggestion, any time the Ring is used there is a test for corruption. Under yours, there are two tests each time invisibility is used (once for using -3 refresh worth of hunger-linked powers, and once for getting a +1 to the resulting stealth roll). Is the second test so vital?
I can't believe the 12 Swords just came up in a RPG forum. I'm in love.
Tolkein notwithstanding, they were my first foray into fantasy... and I was under the impression that Saberhagen was... almost unheard of.
Also, I'm pretty sure I could stat MOST of the 12. They'd be game-breaking, but so is a lot of stuff.
Given that the process of acquiring new powers is essentially outside of the current ruleset, I think a note like this might be a good idea:
"The One Ring serves as justification for its bearer to take a number of refresh worth of powers and stunts equal to his current refresh worth of powers and stunts. This is not optional and may put the character below 0 refresh."
Does the Ring's enslaving effect require close proximity?
How so? Under my suggestion, any time the Ring is used there is a test for corruption. Under yours, there are two tests each time invisibility is used (once for using -3 refresh worth of hunger-linked powers, and once for getting a +1 to the resulting stealth roll). Is the second test so vital?Perhaps this was a miscommunication.
An 'infuriating insult' is not a mental attack.The stunt 'Infuriate' would seem to disagree. See YS153.
Regardless, my (unstated) assumption was that the general rule that a consequence must be "compatible with the nature of the attack that inflicted the harm" still holds; generally this would require a mental attack intended to force obedience from the victim or some variation on that theme.
I think it's a shame that some of the greatest writers in the genre have been forgotten. Saberhagen, Zelazny, Vance, and Moorcock are names that all gamers should know.
Statting the Swords...
The problem with that is that there were no non-Sword defenses against most of the Swords. Nothing could tie or beat them. There was no defense against Farslayer, there was no attack that Doomgiver couldn't turn back, etc. Spend a century building a ward? That's no defense. Did Mab annoy you? Use Farslayer to take her out and she dies - one attack and she's dead.
I can't see see a way to stat a "this attack will kill Mab, or the Winter Mother, or Uriel, or whoever you want to kill with it" thing. Some of the others, sure, but Farslayer, Doomgiver, Townsaver, and Shieldbreaker? They are beyond numbers.
Richard
Farslayer looks easy enough to stat from where I'm standing. It's a potion that makes a (Lore) shift Thaumaturgy attack against whoever you name. It has All Creatures Are Equal Before God. It ignores the normal rules about invocations boosting potions; the user can take as much FP debt as he likes to give it +2 strength per point.
THE ONE RING [-1]
Description: A simple gold ring. The Dark Lord Sauron invested it with most of his power, and if he should recover it he will surely conquer Middle Earth. The One Ring is semi-sentient, and those around it are frequently enslaved by its power.
Musts: You must have an aspect related to your possession of this item. This aspect should reflect your relationship to the Ring and the level of control that it has over you. (see below)
Skills Affected: Discipline
Effects:
[-0] Purpose. The One Ring was created to bring dominion over Middle-Earth to the Lord of the Rings. It may be used for any purpose, but its wearer and those around its wearer will often receive compels related to this purpose.
[-0] It Is What It Is. The One Ring is a ring. Pretty ordinary looking, except for the words that appear when it is burned.
[-0] Unbreakable. As an Item of Power, this item cannot be broken except by the fires of Mount Doom.
[+2] One-Time Discount. The One Ring is small and easily concealed but the wearer will be tempted to use its power in obvious ways. In addition, the wearer becomes obvious to creatures related to the Ring when he uses its power.
[+1] Corrupting Influence. The One Ring benefits all actions that serve its purpose as per Demonic Co-Pilot. It opposes actions that do not by arranging coincidence and circumstance as if by Guide My Hand. It is possible (and happens often) that the Ring can set up an unfortunate coincidence where the bearer has to use its power to survive so that the Ring can inflict corruption (mental stress) via Demonic Co-Pilor.
[-0] Unnatural Vitality. The One Ring keeps its bearers alive, no matter how badly the passing of time might wither them. This power is mechanically identical to Wizard's Constitution.
[-2] Cloak of Shadows. The bearer may become invisible as per Greater Veil, though they gain no ability to employ illusions or conjure objects, like with normal Greater Veils.
[-4] One Ring To Rule Them All. The bearer may use Master Domination on any ringbearer or creature directly under any Ring's power. This ability is limited to such creatures alone but its range is unlimited. The bearer of the One Ring only pays refresh for this ability if he has attempted to use it at least once. (Master Domination, limited to ring-affected creatures, range increased to unlimited)
[-3] One Ring To Find Them. The bearer can see all other ringbearers, all worn Rings and all creatures and objects directly affected by any Ring's power, regardless of range or impediments. The bearer of the One Ring only pays refresh for this ability if he has attempted to use it at least once, and the progression is gradual; a beginning user may only pay -1 refresh for seeing bearers and rings clearly if he is directly present, for a -2 a more advanced user could sense them at significant ranges and only a master could wield the full effect.
[-4] One Ring To Bring Them All. Once per scene, the bearer of the One Ring may manipulate a situation as if by Guide My Hand. As per normal, he cannot control the outcome exactly but the arrangement of coincidenceis always favorable to the Ring's purpose. This ability's range is unlimited, meaning scenes the bearer is not in can be manipulated, though only one such scene at a time. The bearer of the One Ring only pays refresh for this ability if he has attempted to use it at least once.
[-4] And in the Darkness Bind Them. Creatures making an evil choice in any scene manipulated by the One Ring benefit from (and are corrupted by) Demonic Co-Pilot. The bearer of the One Ring only pays refresh for this ability if he has attempted to use it at least once.
The problem with that is that there were no non-Sword defenses against most of the Swords. Nothing could tie or beat them. There was no defense against Farslayer, there was no attack that Doomgiver couldn't turn back, etc. Spend a century building a ward? That's no defense. Did Mab annoy you? Use Farslayer to take her out and she dies - one attack and she's dead.
Heh. You think Farslayer or Doomgiver would be enough to even mildly annoy Mab? Throw the sword of Vengeance at Mab and she simply teleports to her domain faster than the sword can get there - for the sword still takes a certain amount of time to travel. Then once the sword enters her domain, she slows time indefinitely in the part of her domain it is in and the sword gets stuck. Or she simply keeps teleporting around every so often faster than the sword can follow.Just a note, I believe at least one of the Swords took out a god. That's gotta count for something... And you have to know the attack is coming, and with which Sword. A couple of them cloud (or dull) minds to a certain extent, and while Sightblinder is in your left hand, Mab won't fight you, (who look like) Her greatest desire or deepest fear, as you throw Farslayer into her heart at point-blank range with your right.
Against Doomgiver, Mab calls in an antarctic storm centered on herself. Doomgiver turning this attack against Mab will have no effect since it is already being cast on Mab (and mab is strengthened by winter anyway.) Then the Doomgiver's wielder kills himself by breathing in a -70 degrees air or kills himself by trying not to breathe; no power is used against the wielder directly so the sword has nothing to reflect.
Heh. You think Farslayer or Doomgiver would be enough to even mildly annoy Mab?
The gods of the 12 swords' universe are some emotions of humanity that after a few millennia of repetition have taken up physical form as incarnations of an aspect of humanity.
In short, the gods of the 12 swords universe are not the same order of being as Mab. They are about the same order of being as the Lords of the Outer Night, perhaps even equal to the Red King, each one of them. The being in that series who appears to be close to Mab in power is the Emperor - and he's been shown to have at least some resistance to the power of the swords.
Besides, even if the Swords are capable of killing Mab, the wielder of one of the swords is not curbstomped a dozen times before they can even draw the weapon by Mab just speaking at them, they manage to actually use the sword on her and she dies, there are two potential outcomes.
You say that you disagree with the build, but I can't tell why.
The One Ring already demands an aspect, so that's covered.
Are you saying that you don't like the attempt to stat up things like this?
I am really losing my respect for the term "plot device". Here's why:
....That's not a rhetorical question. I'm really asking.
PS: I don't deny that big things are usually harder to stat than little ones. Aspects are a very crude way to model specific effects. So if you want to write up gods, you better write some god powers first. And that's not easy. (Which is why I haven't written Mab stats yet.) But it is possible. (Which is why I probably will write Mab stats one of these days.)
But here's a counter:Two comments: Sithrovax was the weakest of the Dragons and the Swords of the Cross explicitly have different levels of power depending on who they are fighting and aren't just swords, they are direct channels of the power of the White God and his servants (their stats in the game only sort of reflect this variability). Against a normal human they are little more than swords, against the entirety of the Red Court one allowed an Archangel to gain control of the wielder for a short period of time and channel power quite a bit of power through them. More than likely Michael's fight vs. Sithrovax could more accurately be describe as an Archangel controlling Michael's body vs. a Dragon.
Whenever Jim lists "beings that can take Mab on" he includes Ferrovax. Note that he also includes the enter White Council, Drakul, and a few others, but Ferrovax is there. Ah - found it - the post is at http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,11012.msg462610.html#msg462610 (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,11012.msg462610.html#msg462610).
Why is Ferrovax such a big deal? Because he's a greater dragon. Now he used to have brother, name of Sirothrax, who did various things - but he doesn't have that brother anymore. Why? Because that brother ran into a sword. A Sword of the Cross, but a sword just the same.
That's right - a sword with comparability low refresh held by a Knight of the Cross kill the brother of something that could take on Mab. If a Sword of the Cross could do that, then why wouldn't a Sword be able to take on Mab?
But statting them out is a bit like statting the One Ring (see? I got back on topic). A plot device is a plot device. Giving a plot device stats is meaningless. It's like trying to work out the shifts needed to do the spell the Red Court tried. Weeks of prep time at the center of ley lines with dozens (if not hundreds) of human sacrifices - how many shifts would that be? If you call that number X you'll see that it's the same number of shifts needed by a spell to kill Mab (there's some speculation that Donar Vadderung is part of Dresden's family tree and was the real target) and the same number of shifts that One Ring could produce.
For X = the amount that plot requires.
Richard
The way I statted the One Ring, its power depends upon the wielder in several ways. First, the wielder may never attempt to actually use its powers. Secondly, some of the powers depend on opposed skill use and thus a relatively weak wielder could not use them while a relatively powerful one could - so the more powerful the wielder the greater the ring's power.
As for the power of the Ring, I gave it the ability to make ppl invisible or dominate other ringbearers but its greatest ability is to arrange coincidences - i.e. allow the wielder to dictate the plot. That makes the One Ring as powerful and terrifying as the plot itself can be. Don't like the enemy company marching across a mountain? You can plot a natural snowstorm in their path every scene for the fun of it. Want to build a massive and massively powerful tower? You can plot that your workers find precisely the right materials for it in the first few hours of delving and that they work perfectly well together for every scene thereafter till completion.
Or better yet, why not reforge it via a crafting-based transformation effect into an artifact that is every bit as powerful, but serves him, rather than Sauron! That would only be ... oh, say 145 complexity or so, which means another few hours spent baking Mana-Balls(TM) (They're magically delicious!). Or...
Sounds like a great idea to me.
And any GM that lets a player pull off a 145 complexity ritual without the ritual itself being the central theme of an epic story?
Deserves the consequences to his game.
There are certainly consequences to statting stuff up, but there are also consequences to leaving stuff statless.
Without stats, the GM is basically making stuff up as he goes along. This can be difficult for the GM and annoying for the players. More importantly, it isn't really possible to run a conflict with something unless you stat it.
And it's my firm belief that it should be possible to run conflicts with the gods. Here's why:
Killing Mab as a Submerged character is probably not possible. But beating or at least challenging her in an argument isn't. (Harry does it).
And overpowering Sauron as a Feet In The Water character is almost certainly impossible. But you can totally kill him if you hit his weakness. (Frodo did it.)
Part of the reason for having stats is so that you can see what is possible and what isn't.
So even if there's no point in giving Mab's combat abilities, her social skills and stunts are valuable.
And personally, I think that anyone trying to fight Mab deserves more than death by GM fiat. Death by rigorously-defined mechanics is much more palatable for me.
So...that's why I think that gods ought to have stats. Does that sound reasonable?
PS: Tedronai is totally right about high-level rituals. The game consistently presents 25-shift rituals as impressive. 145 shift rituals are supposed to be truly awe-inspiring.
PPS: The One Ring's plot-altering stuff is mostly just compels.
PPPS: I don't much like perfect effects myself, but sometimes they are the only way to go.
1. What exactly do you mean by "a storytelling game?"
2. Also: A god trying to kill you will probably take about 90 seconds. A 20-shift evocation takes little time to resolve. No need to worry about wasting time.
3. Also: Nobody can improvise infinitely well. The argument that you should be able to improvise would also justify not making a city or any NPCs at all. In fact, it would justify that better. The weaker the NPC, the easier it is to make (generally speaking).
It would be, in a similar vein, to statting up Excalibur if you planned on using it as a central theme for the story (like, for example, in the movie Excalibur). It should have some tangible stats, for sure, but a lot of the more "plottish" stuff should be left to... well, the plot.
I'm not saying Richard_Chilton agreed or disagreed with me: however, as you can see - sometimes statting a god can be detrimental to a game.