ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Taustealthsuit on December 30, 2011, 08:05:40 AM
-
Let's say you want to do a water evocation maneuver that simply covers someone's mouth and nose with water. It seems pretty straight forward. If you succeed then you target is subject to the aspect, suffocating! Sure I get a tag and I get a +2 the next round to punch him (or what ever else I want to do to him), as he struggles against the water pouring into his lungs.
But what else happens, magical water is filling up his lungs, have I just found sure fire way to kill someone (who needs oxygen to breath). It might take a while for him him to die, he might even get a few shots off, but I can pretty much just move on to his friends, and leve him to die a terrible slow death.
I guess the game mechanics question I have hear, is what sort of compels can I expect from this magical maneuver, I bet you would even be willing to spend the fate point to compel your opponent to drown.
This may sound like I am trying to abuse something here, but I can imagine this sort of situation to be pretty common in magical combat. I mean why bother throwing attack spells back and forth if toucan just put a debilitating (or lethal) aspect on someone.
Even if PC's never do something like this I can imagine the first time they run into a really powerful wizard an NPC might try this.
-
One possible response from a GM:
"Sorry, that's not a maneuver, that's an attack. The target will defend with endurance, and you'll deal stress/consequences as usual."
In other words, you can't kill someone with a maneuver. Maneuvers are for temporary conditions that affect the flow of conflict. Actually taking someone out of the fight requires an attack.
(or grapple, but I REALLY don't want to get into the magical grapple debate right now)
-
Let's say you want to do a water evocation maneuver that simply covers someone's mouth and nose with water. It seems pretty straight forward. If you succeed then you target is subject to the aspect, suffocating! Sure I get a tag and I get a +2 the next round to punch him (or what ever else I want to do to him), as he struggles against the water pouring into his lungs.
But what else happens, magical water is filling up his lungs, have I just found sure fire way to kill someone (who needs oxygen to breath). It might take a while for him him to die, he might even get a few shots off, but I can pretty much just move on to his friends, and leve him to die a terrible slow death.
A RAW way to do this (though everyone else will hate me for bringing it up) is to actually model this after the Orbius spell. It's basically a magic grapple that slowly inflicts stress.
I guess the game mechanics question I have hear, is what sort of compels can I expect from this magical maneuver, I bet you would even be willing to spend the fate point to compel your opponent to drown.
It's basically the GM's job here to say "No, that is a weak compel that does not add to the game." Even if you don't believe that the GM is the only one who can compel, it is clear in the RAW that all compels must run through the GM. A GM is well within their rights to simply refuse the compel.
-
Sure I can totally see the GM not allowing a maneuver that can drown someone because it is too powerful, but not really because it doesn't add to the game. It is totally the sort of thing a DF caster could be able to do. I actually think something like this happens in one of the novels.
I know I could do this with an attack, but for some reason, that just doesn't feel right to me.
-
How is this different from Orbius?
Okay, I'll play. There's actually something very similar to this in the book in the Claws power.
Venomous [–2]. Your claws are venomous. Make a Fists maneuver; if successful, the target gains a Poisoned aspect. In each subsequent exchange, the target must roll Endurance to defend against an attack from the poison equal to your Fists score. Once the target concedes or is taken out (falling unconscious), the attacks stop (see page 203 for guidelines on being taken out). However, the damage is already done; without proper medical attention, a taken out victim will die soon (within a few hours, perhaps less), though not immediately. Proper medical attention will remove the aspect and end the effect. This is an opposed roll—you can roll Fists (since that was the skill for the original attack) to set the difficulty to mitigate the poison.
So basically, I'd charge you one shift of power for each exchange you want the spell to last, set the difficulty as the power of the maneuver. Which I think is broken.
Or I'd say that this is basically a magical grapple and have you run it like the Orbius spell on YS294-295. This is what I'd really do.
On a side note: for save or suck type effects, I allow them as maneuvers with a simple caveat. They last one round. If you want to stun an enemy, you can for a round. After that, they're acting normally unless a: the aspect is sticky and b: you invoke it in subsequent rounds. So, given this I'd allow it the first way if you invoked the aspect each round.
-
Would it feel right to you for your gm to put a few shifts of effect into a maneuver and then have his npc give you the aspect "cut throat" or "choking on his own blood"?
Placing a "drowning" aspect that is treated as an auto kill is the same mechanics with different fluff.
Additionally unless they could easily follow shagnasty's example and throw up a circle so I don't think I would be moving on to the next bad guy if I were you.
-
Tau, Let me clarify what I meant by "adds to the game." It's the GM's job to make sure that aspects, compels and invokes benefit the game in one of two ways, the story or the overall fun.
Does this benefit the story? I'll give you a little on that one, it certainly adds a flair to the story, but it actually takes away from the drama/tension as I will explain in a moment, and tension is necessary for any story.
Does it add to the fun of the game? The first time, definitely. The players feel the rush of power, something interesting happens. That can be great. The twentieth time? No, by then it will be agonizing as the wizards handwave whole armies to death and every other player sits on the sidelines until they happen to be able to pull off something similar.
And now we get back to my earlier point about tension. When the players can instantly kill any enemy with a single roll there's no challenge, no tension or drama. These are the things that pull us, that make us want to move forward. Without them what is the point? Why would we continue to look under rocks if we don't care what's under them?
That is what I mean when I say that a compel like this doesn't add to the game (furthermore it detracts from it).
-
The target can also remove your Aspect with a successful roll, just like he can remove a mundane aspect. (Oh, Water around my nose and mouth? I roll Athletics to wipe it away quickly) Or, with GM and Table permission, and perhaps a related Aspect invoke, prevent the damage for a time. ("Water on my face! Good thing I've got Seal Training!" **Successful Endurance Roll +2 for Invoke** "I can keep fighting for a good long while!")
Also, they can create an aspect that counters yours. (I'm Drowning! Good thing I have... **Fate Point Declaration** "A Long Straw in my Pocket" to breathe through!)
Others can help. ("Oh, My, that Man Can't Breath Water!" "Don't worry, I'm a Doctor" **Successful Scholarship Maneuver** "Whew! Fast work, but this Tracheotomy should allow him to survive!")
Not such a problem, that Evocation.
-
I agree that some degree of tension is necessary for any story. But even if the players can instantly kill any enemy with a single roll, I think that it only reduces the amount of the tension or drama, afterall there is still the possiblity of the roll not succeeding. If the story is epic, interesting and exciting, reducing or even eliminating the challenge entirely does not detract from it.
-
As computerking points out, maneuver created aspects aren't all that difficult to remove. Unless you roll poorly, you'll probably end up similar to InFerrumVeritas' one round rule.
That said, I do prefer to avoid potential "takeout by aspect" situations. Consequently I'd probably go with an imperfect attack - the spell causes problems but not death...at least not by itself.
-
Thank you all, this was very helpful, especially pointing out the orbits spell on page 249. I knew there had to be more to than just putting a really nasty aspect on someone, and then spending fate points until they were dead, but nasty spells should exist in this world, I just needed to understand how they interact with the rules.
I get that it would suck to simply have a petrified aspect put on you and then you are a statue, but I needed more than, "dude hat sucks, you can't do that."
-
I guess the game mechanics question I have hear, is what sort of compels can I expect from this magical maneuver, I bet you would even be willing to spend the fate point to compel your opponent to drown.
Well, if your oponent is a mook NPC, I'd just take the Fate point and give you the death as. Tag for effect (specially if I get to put a Lawbreaker on you). But if it's someone with plot immunity, I'd just declare that not a compel and wait to see what cool stuff you do with your +2 from a free tag.
This may sound like I am trying to abuse something here, but I can imagine this sort of situation to be pretty common in magical combat. I mean why bother throwing attack spells back and forth if toucan just put a debilitating (or lethal) aspect on someone.
It's just an aspect, it's not debilitating aspect. It's not like we haven't all had a drowning aspect come up in play.
Even if PC's never do something like this I can imagine the first time they run into a really powerful wizard an NPC might try this.
And he'd get a +2 or a reroll for his maneuver.
-
I get that it would suck to simply have a petrified aspect put on you and then you are a statue, but I needed more than, "dude hat sucks, you can't do that."
One thing about compels which seems to be forgotten all too often: compels are negotiated. (YS100 & YS103)
When the compel seems anticlimactic, inappropriate, or simply boring, offer a counter. Instead of drowning, maybe the character loses a round and gains the moderate consequence "Water in his Lungs". Or perhaps the spell barely succeeded and you think a minor consequence of "Coughing up Water" is more appropriate.
Point is, it shouldn't be an either / or question of compel and die or just invoke.
-
Consequences from Maneuvers are just a slippery slope to take-outs, imho.
Losing a round clearing the water from their lungs after they remove the original aspect, and being able to pursue only that removal until then, would seem a more reasonable compel.
If you want to cause a Consequence, model it as an Attack.
-
Then negotiate it to cause no consequences...or to cause the same number which would have been taken if the spell had been an attack. What your table negotiates to isn't my point - the negotiation process itself is. ;)
-
What your table negotiates to isn't my point - the negotiation process itself is. ;)
While the negotiated nature of compels is something I feel needs to be more frequently and strongly reinforced on these boards, my point was to say that your suggested alternative should not be any more acceptable than the original offer because it is, ultimately, only a hairsbreadth away.
Perhaps your suggestion wasn't meant to be taken that seriously, but backing away chanting 'your table, your rules' isn't particularly conducive to discussion.
-
While the negotiated nature of compels is something I feel needs to be more frequently and strongly reinforced on these boards, my point was to say that your suggested alternative should not be any more acceptable than the original offer because it is, ultimately, only a hairsbreadth away.
It may not be acceptable to you, why do you think it should therefore be unacceptable to everyone else? This what negotiation is there to resolve. Player A wants to compel death, player B thinks aspects shouldn't cause any damage...talk it out. Negotiate. Compromise even. Get the table's consensus and move on with play. :)
Perhaps your suggestion wasn't meant to be taken that seriously, but backing away chanting 'your table, your rules' isn't particularly conducive to discussion.
Yet that is the rule. Negotiation at each given table. And I think it allows far more room for discussion than some form of absolutism.
As for what I think personally, I don't see any issue with consequences being a negotiated part of a compel. Or a concession. Or even used to succeed at casting a spell. That doesn't mean I'd agree to it every time, it does need to make sense in the situation. In the end, consequences are simply something important to the narrative.
The book appears to suggest just about anything is open to negotiation as part of a compel. It even uses losing initiative and being unaware of an opponent as one example.
Final point - the initial aspect should also be negotiated. Perhaps it never should have been "Face Covered with Water" in the first place if you don't want to allow the effects of that to shape your story.
-
I don't think that an aspect can be used to take out an enemy but I think it defiantly could be used to cause a concession for example invoking for effect the mental consequence 'terrified of X' to cause an enemy to flee would be such an example.
-
Umbra, if you truly are of the opinion that everything should be relegated to 'negotiation at each given table' why do you bother engaging in rules discussion on this forum in the first place?
The point, here, is to try to arrive at some sort of common understanding of the rules of the system. The limits, if there are any, of what a compel is able to accomplish clearly qualifies.
-
I'll answer these in reverse order...
The point, here, is to try to arrive at some sort of common understanding of the rules of the system.
I hope not! I certainly don't see a lot of agreement on the internet and don't like failure enough to keep coming back and failing to get agreement...if that were the point. ;)
Umbra, if you truly are of the opinion that everything should be relegated to 'negotiation at each given table' why do you bother engaging in rules discussion on this forum in the first place?
Many reasons but three stand out here. Discussing a shared interest is often enjoyable simply for the discussion itself. Better yet, discussions often spark creativity - help you work through new ideas or open access to someone else's ideas. Most of all, it's to learn something - different perspectives can change your point of view even if you still disagree.
The world would be a boring place if we all knew everything and didn't disagree.
-----
FATE is tied very closely to modifying a shared narrative - building a story by consensus. Both stories and consensus are strongly flavored by perspective. Given that, would you really expect a line drawn in concrete somewhere stating "This ye shall not pass"?
-
would you really expect a line drawn in concrete somewhere stating "This ye shall not pass"?
I would appreciate some attempt to derive a line drawn somewhere stating 'a substantial portion of the community deems this unwise and/or unbalancing'.
I do not understand the reticence to attempt deriving such.
-
I would appreciate some attempt to derive a line drawn somewhere stating 'a substantial portion of the community deems this unwise and/or unbalancing'.
This much is sometimes possible...yet even this is colored by experience and perspective. But, to paraphrase Feynman, not "knowing" is great - it's the search which is rewarding. Or, in this case, it's looking at all the different perspectives and possibilities.
I do not understand the reticence to attempt deriving such.
Don't misunderstand, there's a difference between explaining a point of view (even persuasively) and expecting, or even desiring, consistent success in changing minds. The first makes for a good discussion while the latter makes for good preaching. I'm no preacher. ;)
-
By generating the "drowning aspect" on a person with a manuever, do you then take into account the drowning environmental dmg discussed in the "story" book. Same with "on fire" aspect, or suffocating from being dropped into an earth evokers mud/sand pit? A couple of these have come up in my game recently i ruled that if the victom is suffering from a manuever and cant break it, then yes they take the extra damage from environmental factors. Usually a 3 stress hit from fire and a 5 stress hit from drowning.
-
That's a possible way of dealing with it, though Fred will likely tell you that it's the most boring way to deal with it. Better is to allow the aspect to shape the narrative instead.
-
I would appreciate some attempt to derive a line drawn somewhere stating 'a substantial portion of the community deems this unwise and/or unbalancing'.
For what it's worth, here are my thoughts on how to start looking for this line:
Data point 1: The most basic use of an aspect is to turn a fate point (or a free tag) into a +2 to a roll. It seems to me that this sets a reasonable baseline for how effective other uses of aspects should be -- that is, "not much more than two shifts".
Data point 2: A maneuver allows you to convert an action into an aspect plus a free tag. Reverse this to see that spending that tag to cost a character a lost action is well within the bounds of reasonability.
Data point 3: For attacks and consequential contests, invoking an aspect can be countered by a mild consequence (a severe consequence counters the effect of three invoked aspects). So it seems fair to say that an aspect generated by a maneuver probably shouldn't be much more "severe" in nature than a mild consequence.
Note that I'm not trying to say that an invoke-for-effect or compel need be restricted to exactly two shifts of effect; I'm just trying to establish a sense of scale. Using a maneuver to inflict Shoelaces tied together on an unsuspecting victim, then making them trip and lose their first action of an ensuing combat seems reasonable. Inflicting Throat ripped to shreds by maneuver then invoking it to cause death by strangulation/blood loss is not reasonable.
Note also that any time an aspect is used to trigger a compel, the victim always has the option to say "Nah, I'll just buy off the compel. Having my entrails ripped from my stomache and tied around the fire hydrant by your maneuver last exchange doesn't complicate my life". Perhaps that should be a "data point 4"...
It might also be worth taking another look at the section on maneuvers on YS207, which says the following that is relevant to a discussion of the 'power level' of a maneuver:
* You can use maneuvers to gain momentary, situational advantages in a conflict
* It doesn’t have a lasting effect on an opponent, but it sets up a condition that will make a future attack more effective
If you are trying to do more than the above with a maneuver (like cause death), then you might want to consider a different mechanic, like an attack.
So -- using water magic to fill someone's mouth with water. I think that any of the following would be reasonable:
* Maneuver placing "Choking on water", which could be tagged or invoked to cause the victim difficulty due to the effects of the spell. This might include losing an action while gagging and trying to spit the water out. Or possibly taking a two-stress hit instead. Or just spending a fate point to avoid being inconvenienced.
* Grapple attack, which would cause extending incapacitation and a 1-stress hit per exchange until the victim manages to break the grapple or the spell wears off.
* Normal attack, inflicting damage as normal (or possibly using the special-effect attack rules on YS326 to do a mixture of damage and the above).
At least, that's how I look at it.
-
Is the environmental damage part of an invoke or compel?
If so, sounds good. If not, then it doesn't.
Aspects, after all, don't actually do anything unless invoked or compelled.