ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Thaumologist on March 08, 2012, 12:00:41 PM
-
So I was wondering how other groups worked on their PCs having items, and what the costs where.
For example, I have a rogue style shapeshifter (can turn into an insect), who wants a set of lockpicks, or a pack of hairpins, or something so he can attempt to pick locks. How would you cost this? Because I had a few thoughts:
1 FP for a stunt "I own lockpicks", that gives him the ability to pick locks, or a bonus on mechanical ones and the ability to attempt any, or something.
Passing a resource roll, and then just saying he has them.
One of his aspects is "convicted thief", so he could invoke that (once) to have the lockpicks, until he gets caught. And then he can invoke again.
Linked, I wondered about costs to armour and weapons. I don't have the books with me (Term time now, and I didn't bring the books to Uni), so I don't know if it is detailed in them, but does anyone have anything concrete, or is it house rules?
Thanks in advance,
C
-
For example, I have a rogue style shapeshifter (can turn into an insect), who wants a set of lockpicks, or a pack of hairpins, or something so he can attempt to pick locks. How would you cost this? Because I had a few thoughts:
1 FP for a stunt "I own lockpicks", that gives him the ability to pick locks, or a bonus on mechanical ones and the ability to attempt any, or something.
Passing a resource roll, and then just saying he has them.
One of his aspects is "convicted thief", so he could invoke that (once) to have the lockpicks, until he gets caught. And then he can invoke again.
Most commonly, this is a declaration. No need to spend refresh.
Linked, I wondered about costs to armour and weapons. I don't have the books with me (Term time now, and I didn't bring the books to Uni), so I don't know if it is detailed in them, but does anyone have anything concrete, or is it house rules?
I use real world costs along with the Resources table of what is affordable. With most personal items, cost is less prohibiting than law or social mores.
-
I think you are over worrying about it, You basically have a player asking you to let him be a way for you to add a raodblock with an obvious solution & preplannable failure consequences.... One of your players decide to wander off? *poof* perfect reason to want to find the rest of the group. They you have teamwork stiff like putting a ward on the door/lock ;).
Lockpicks aren't exactly tough to get. google shows them at being around 10-30$ http://budk.com/results.aspx?k=lock+pick&sourcecode=GONBBK&gclid=CNba3_jI164CFc-a7QodaiARfw unless you want the electric sort, setup an adventure where a fae is willing to hand over some fae-crafted ones or something that shrink with him to insect size in exchange for services; maybe say there are a bunch in the set and let him roll a single fudge die to see if he has the right picks until enough services are rendered to get the full set with the +//- being yes/takes some extra time to use a nearly correct pick/no or something.
-
One of my players maxed out his resources and contacts. He can get basically anything, whereas the others didn't put any points into theirs. Considering they're playing long time friends, it makes sense for him to be allowed to buy anything for them, but they then have no issue over anything, except shipping times.
What do you mean by "issue"? Certainly, if someone has a 6 in contacts and resources they should have no problem acquiring lockpicks, hand guns, cars, all the cool-aid in the store, whathaveyou. But even with an 8 in contacts and resources, even if he can afford that Abrahms tank or that cruise missile, he can't buy it. It's restricted and obvious.
If the issue is that you want them to be restricted to scraping and begging for flack jackets and baseball bats, then GM fiat that they can't put their resources that high-- but it sounds like that's not the kind of game they want.
Conversely, if they have no problem taking out the enemies that guns and money can take, put them up against an enemy that they can't take out that way. Corrupt politician, anyone? You can't just stroll up to him. Catholic bishop whose heart is in the right place but is taking the wrong course? You can't just walk up and shoot him.
The players are telling you they don't want difficulties in that area. Listen to them. Challenge them in other ways.
-
With 8 in contacts and resources you can afford a personal army and have the contacts to set yourself up as a an independent state (a tank wouldn't be a big deal), with 8 contact you can declare you know someone with an ex-soviet nuke for sale and with 8 resources you could buy it.
-
... with 8 contact you can declare you know someone with an ex-soviet nuke for sale and with 8 resources you could buy it.
Yes, but you can't have it in your Chicagoland back yard. That's my point.
With 8 in contacts and resources you can afford a personal army and have the contacts to set yourself up as a an independent state...
If you want to set your PC up as an independant warlord in Whozbuttistan with all the others, be my guest. He just won't be a PC anymore unless: the game is global-scale, in which case tanks and nukes are reasonable; or they have a powerful wizard with detailed knowledge of the ways between PC-town and Whozbuttistan.
-
I'd just start making introducing suitable real life complications for that "Banker" PC to dissuade this.
He starts buying multiple sets of Kevlar, Automatic Weapons and Explosives...well I'd think the ATF would have an interest in that. Assuming he kept this up, well that suspicious pattern of purchasing could lead to a visit from the local FBI field office or being dropped onto the Terrorist Watchlist. When he finds his Business (I assume that's how he has such high resources) being audited by the IRS and Stocks and accounts being frozen he might learn to be a little more circumspect with his money.
Add to that the fact he apparently associates with a known convicted felon...
Play it off as compels against whatever aspect is linked to this buying-power (I assume he has one).
BTW: Insect shapeshifter...Nice idea, never would have thought of it. Particularly good for a thief one would think. I assume that it's a natural sized insect? Or is it a Giant-sized 1950's style monster horror insect? Or Both?
-
I'd just start making introducing suitable real life complications for that "Banker" PC to dissuade this.
He starts buying multiple sets of Kevlar, Automatic Weapons and Explosives...well I'd think the ATF would have an interest in that. Assuming he kept this up, well that suspicious pattern of purchasing could lead to a visit from the local FBI field office or being dropped onto the Terrorist Watchlist. When he finds his Business (I assume that's how he has such high resources) being audited by the IRS and Stocks and accounts being frozen he might learn to be a little more circumspect with his money.
Add to that the fact he apparently associates with a known convicted felon...
Play it off as compels against whatever aspect is linked to this buying-power (I assume he has one).
BTW: Insect shapeshifter...Nice idea, never would have thought of it. Particularly good for a thief one would think. I assume that it's a natural sized insect? Or is it a Giant-sized 1950's style monster horror insect? Or Both?
Aka what contacts is for you know the right people to make your purchases untraceable and have the local head of police on the payroll.
-
Aka what contacts is for you know the right people to make your purchases untraceable and have the local head of police on the payroll.
Unless the local head of police is Incorruptible... Has the character been created/the Declaration roll been made?
Also, just because the purchases aren't tracable under normal circumstances doesn't mean the seller won't sing like a canary if the ATF arrests THEM and demands their buyer list. That can lead to future roleplay, and complications (PC Awareness roll notices someone trailing them, prepares for a fight with the BBEG, winds up assaulting an ATF investigator, etc...).
No-one is perfect, no matter how high their Resources stat is. They can't control everything, and its things outside of theiir control that lead to interesting Roleplay possibilities.
-
Aka what contacts is for you know the right people to make your purchases untraceable and have the local head of police on the payroll.
Ah, that would be why I said I'd personally handle it as a compel. He can accept it and deal with the consequences (His shady arms dealer contact has sold him out to the Feds, his unusual pattern of purchases have drawn the attention of a dogged ATF Investigator who just won't be bribed, or whatever), or he can buy out of it like any compel.
Besides, just because he has the local police chief on the payroll, doesn't mean that somebody else isn't going to interfere (the aforementioned ATF/FBI agent, an Honest politician (yes apparently they do exist), or a business rival aiming to throw mud on his reputation).
-
I think the point most of us are trying to make here, ways and means, is (resources + contacts) is not a do-whatever-the-hell-you-want card.
-
Returning to the original issue of potential imbalance when getting powerful items essentially free of charge (with someone else's resources)
The way this could be tackled is to assign a refresh cost to the really powerful mundane stuff, just like Items of Power. How steep these costs are, depends on the style of campaign and probably takes some practice to adjust to the righ level. But obviously when the power level of mundane stuff starts to approach the supernatural, it only makes sense to start charging for it.
If the items are only in temporary use, the refresh they use up should be returned once the item is no longer in use - one immediately starts to think of nice self-compels of powerful gear breaking up or being lost to regain the "invested" FP...
-
All of this being the case, having high scores in Resources and Contacts means that the player *wants* to be the one who can get those things done. Coupled with an Aspect or two about wealth and/or connections, the player is making it clear that, whatever else may be going on, they want wealth and connections to be their Evocation and Thaumaturgy. Intentionally nerfing their skills can create the wrong impression.
That said...
Compels: definitely Compel any connections or wealth Aspects, or Compel the more "straight and narrow" Aspects when their sketchy purchases might create a conflict for them.
Time: one thing we forget about purchasing items is that they ostensibly take time. If you really need to reign in a character who has managed to buy or hire his way out of any conflict, simply start enforcing time on them. Meeting with that gun-runner takes time to set up properly, even more if you want little to no chance of ATF getting wind of it.
Risk: as folks have mentioned before, sketchy purchases have risk. Again, going back to the weapons supplier: if you've established that it takes about 1 day of finagling with a Resources 4 check to get a secure transfer of contraband weaponry, but the player needs it in 2 game hours, make it into a conflict between them, the squirrely gunrunner, and the authorities. Up the difficulty. Let them take a Consequence to make up the difference in the shifts they roll. Involve the other players.
Ultimately, I don't think charging Refresh for mundane items is the answer: those should be handled by Declarations, which are something the GM can certainly limit without nerfing the system.
Edit: also, somebody's note about sponsored Resources over on another thread: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,29719.msg1340419.html#msg1340419
-
Yeah, I tried that... And they decided they'd just lounge around their apartment for a few days.
Wow, it's nice of the villain to put his or her plan on hold for the PCs to do that! They be in for a rude awakening when they come up against someone who's really serious about their plots and mayhem!
-
Time: one thing we forget about purchasing items is that they ostensibly take time. If you really need to reign in a character who has managed to buy or hire his way out of any conflict, simply start enforcing time on them. Meeting with that gun-runner takes time to set up properly, even more if you want little to no chance of ATF getting wind of it.
Yeah, I tried that... And they decided they'd just lounge around their apartment for a few days.
The thing we as GMs occasionally forget (or neglect) is that while the PCs are lounging around making phone calls, the bad guys should be hard at work. It's easy to keep the pressure on Harry in the stories because the writer is in charge of everything, and it can be a challenge as a GM to do the same running the game version.
The key is to make choices meaningful. And I see this all the time when I'm playing "Skyrim": if there is no time constraint, no loss for procrastinating something, then that thing will be put off until it pleases the player. My Skyrim character has a huge pile of unresolved quests, and none of them are really hurting to be solved immediately, even though in a real-world analogue of that fantasy game, those things would expire as other adventurers stepped in to resolve them in a more timely manner, or the bad guys' plots worked through unchallenged to their ultimate conclusion.
So when a group makes a choice to sideline themselves for a few days, that should really free up the bad guys to make great strides in their machinations. The good guys shouldn't just automatically lose in those cases, of course: the conflicts and stakes will just get harder and higher until the players align themselves to the urgency of the situation. But the plot shouldn't have to wait on them to finish shopping: life happens all the time.
I'm not advocating that you punish choices, but rather give choices that have teeth in them. That's a lot more in the spirit of the fiction and the game.
-
Yeah, I tried that... And they decided they'd just lounge around their apartment for a few days.
Have the badguys finish some part of their plan or otherwise do something big while they're faffing about. The whole time thing is meaningless if it doesn't make some kind of tangible consequence. It shouldn't just be, "Okay, three days later, you meet with the guy." It should be, "In the three days you spend waiting for the deal, turns out Lord Evilbad was able to capture the first of the Big Balls of Doom."
-
I'm not advocating that you punish choices, but rather give choices that have teeth in them. That's a lot more in the spirit of the fiction and the game.
I wouldn't even call it punishing. All choices have consequences, even good choices (which usually have good consequences). You're merely creating a more life-like story.
-
I wouldn't even call it punishing. All choices have consequences, even good choices (which usually have good consequences). You're merely creating a more life-like story.
I feel it is still a worthwhile differentiation to make. Some GMs - in a moment of frustration, unpreparedness, or egotism - inadvertently or intentionally opt to "punish" a player decision rather than leverage realistic narrative consequences: it's a thing that does happen, and it is important to know what is happening and to differentiate between reasonable narrative consequences and (intentional, accidental or reactionary) GM vengeance.
-
Yeah, I tried that... And they decided they'd just lounge around their apartment for a few days.
The thing we as GMs occasionally forget (or neglect) is that while the PCs are lounging around making phone calls, the bad guys should be hard at work. It's easy to keep the pressure on Harry in the stories because the writer is in charge of everything, and it can be a challenge as a GM to do the same running the game version.
The key is to make choices meaningful. And I see this all the time when I'm playing "Skyrim": if there is no time constraint, no loss for procrastinating something, then that thing will be put off until it pleases the player. My Skyrim character has a huge pile of unresolved quests, and none of them are really hurting to be solved immediately, even though in a real-world analogue of that fantasy game, those things would expire as other adventurers stepped in to resolve them in a more timely manner, or the bad guys' plots worked through unchallenged to their ultimate conclusion.
So when a group makes a choice to sideline themselves for a few days, that should really free up the bad guys to make great strides in their machinations. The good guys shouldn't just automatically lose in those cases, of course: the conflicts and stakes will just get harder and higher until the players align themselves to the urgency of the situation. But the plot shouldn't have to wait on them to finish shopping: life happens all the time.
I'm not advocating that you punish choices, but rather give choices that have teeth in them. That's a lot more in the spirit of the fiction and the game.
Punish them; just don't surprise them with something world-shattering.
As storyteller, you are perfectly in your right to hit them with consequences for their actions-- but fair play would suggest that when they go, "Hey, we'll order these anti-air missile batteries. They'll take 6-8 months to get here? Ok, no problem," you respond with, "You know, this will give the villain 6 to 8 months to bomb your base. You know that, right?" If they still go ahead with it, it's on them.
I feel it is still a worthwhile differentiation to make. Some GMs - in a moment of frustration, unpreparedness, or egotism - inadvertently or intentionally opt to "punish" a player decision rather than leverage realistic narrative consequences: it's a thing that does happen, and it is important to know what is happening and to differentiate between reasonable narrative consequences and (intentional, accidental or reactionary) GM vengeance.
^ This.
-
I feel it is still a worthwhile differentiation to make. Some GMs - in a moment of frustration, unpreparedness, or egotism - inadvertently or intentionally opt to "punish" a player decision rather than leverage realistic narrative consequences: it's a thing that does happen, and it is important to know what is happening and to differentiate between reasonable narrative consequences and (intentional, accidental or reactionary) GM vengeance.
Agreed, though some GMs take it to the opposite extreme, fearing negative consequences to actions being viewed as GM vengeance.
-
It doesn't have to be something as obvious as, "While you sat around for three days, the bad guy won." Have it come back later, in some subtle manner, that if the group had been more active earlier, they'd be in a better position to stop whatever's going on. Clues were spirited away instead of discovered; a witness was eliminated; someone was paid off. Something where they can look back and say, "If only we hadn't been sitting around waiting..."
It's a balancing act, sure, but one core tenet of Dresden is that choices have consequences, intended or not. It's as much a part of the setting as wizards and fae. You don't have to drop the hammer on'em, but it should be clear to them that if they sit around doing nothing, the bad guys will take advantage of it.
-
And, they're all new to RPGing. I can't be too difficult on them, or they'll just quit.
That makes sense.
Ultimately the fun is what is most important. If this is the first game, there's no bad guy yet, no awareness of a bad guy, and no hook to pull them into the plot, then as a GM, you *may* want to either handwave that they got that taken care of offscreen, before the adventure started, or say "wait."
You may also choose to have the plot happen to them *while* they are in the apartment waiting for their stuff to work out, putting their machinations at risk. It happened to Harry in one story that he made all these preparations for a ritual, and right when he was about to start it, a friend got in trouble and he had to abandon his preparations. Later, he needed to do that same ritual, but without his pile of preparations, so he had to wing it and open himself up to potential failure or consequences.
So yeah: have a friend burst into their apartment with a gunshot wound. Or an enemy with a gun. Or one of the player's contacts starts getting leaned on by the bad guys for some reason.
-
So yeah: have a friend burst into their apartment with a gunshot wound. Or an enemy with a gun.
Or if you really want to confuse'em, an enemy with a gun and a gunshot wound.
Or, go by the old Nanowrimo standard: When in doubt, throw in ninjas.
-
Or if you really want to confuse'em, an enemy with a gun and a gunshot wound.
nice!
-
Yeah, I tried that... And they decided they'd just lounge around their apartment for a few days.
The rich guys trouble is "on the run from the Illuminati". So I make him fail a contacts roll (with all relevant modifiers) any time he uses his contacts, because the aspect he often tags to get bonuses is along the lines of "gone, but not forgotten". that has kinda helped, as it means he is only willing to buy the legal stuff, and rarely the illegal.
Wow. The guy who is throwing around his diamond-encrusted credit card while the Illuminati is actively looking for him must be brave. Instead of compelling him to fail rolls, why not use the "Yes, but..." approach mentioned in the book? Ie, he's able to throw around enough money that he can find people willing to sell him stuff ... but wouldn't those folk with the black suits, shades, and oddly-styled tie pins be looking for just that sort of thing?
Obviously, you don't want to frustrate your players, but this is a compel and as such its under their control. When they start throwing money around in such a way that you feel might come to the attention of the MiBs, offer the player a Fate point (or possibly escalate for really big purchases) and mention to him the risk of discovery. He can choose to accept the complication or buy it off...