ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: ways and means on June 13, 2012, 01:52:49 PM
-
I was wondering how high the complexity people would give plot device rituals?
For example how much complexity would you need to do a higurashi by which I mean seal off a area of about 5 miles in a time bubble that repeats every time everyone inside it dies. I was estimating that would take about 400 complexity with an effective duration of until the end of time, +50 complexity over about 50 zones, and about 300 shifts to do the time repeat trick.
How much Complexity would you need to set every officer in the Chinese army on fire assuming you had a uniform as a focus, again this seems about 30 for effect and then an hard to estimate amount to effect all the people wearing the same uniform probably about 20, so a 50 shift ritual.
-
I was wondering how high the complexity people would give plot device rituals?
For example how much complexity would you need to do a higurashi by which I mean seal off a area of about 5 miles in a time bubble that repeats every time everyone inside it dies. I was estimating that would take about 400 complexity with an effective duration of until the end of time, +50 complexity over about 50 zones, and about 300 shifts to do the time repeat trick.
Enough to guarantee a taken-out result on the beefiest target in the target area (30-60), plus enough to spread that effect over the area (you say 50, ok) plus enough to ward that area well enough that you're satisfied it won't be breached ('seal it off'; probably at least 20) plus duration for that ward (really, around 50 should do it; the whole of the time chart is only 24 steps ranging from 'an instant' to 'several lifetimes' in an exponential growth). 0 shifts for the fluff effect of the time loop.
total ranging from approximately 100 to well over 130 depending on the resilience/importance of the occupants and how impenetrable you want the 'seal' to be
How much Complexity would you need to set every officer in the Chinese army on fire assuming you had a uniform as a focus, again this seems about 30 for effect and then an hard to estimate amount to effect all the people wearing the same uniform probably about 20, so a 50 shift ritual.
probably about 30 for the effect itself, at least 2 for the target selectivity, + some large number for the area you wish to spread the effect over (unless you really want to be paying for each target individually in a 'spray attack')
well over 50
-
If we were talking about a ritual as a plot device, why give it a mechanic at all? If it's got stats it kind of puts it into the realm of 'regularly doable with time/resources/will'. All you'd need to do is drop hints and clues about some of the processes that went in to creating the effect. Remember that a thaumaturgical preparation phase is sometimes a story in itself, and I see no reason why the unravelling of said ritual would be anything else but a story.
I'm assuming the question is posed as an idea you've had in creating strife for characters in a game, rather than a example of how the rules would work. Unless it was something a player was trying to accomplish, I would leave the mechanics out of it and instead focus on obstacles the players would need to overcome to thwart ( love that word ) the villain's villainous villainy.
-
If we were talking about a ritual as a plot device, why give it a mechanic at all?
If it has no mechanics, you can't interact with it using the rules.
Suppose I want to counterspell a "plot device". Which seems like a likely situation to me.
If there are no mechanics, then there's no way to know how hard it'll be to counterspell.
-
I was wondering how high the complexity people would give plot device rituals?
For example how much complexity would you need to do a higurashi by which I mean seal off a area of about 5 miles in a time bubble that repeats every time everyone inside it dies. I was estimating that would take about 400 complexity with an effective duration of until the end of time, +50 complexity over about 50 zones, and about 300 shifts to do the time repeat trick.
How much Complexity would you need to set every officer in the Chinese army on fire assuming you had a uniform as a focus, again this seems about 30 for effect and then an hard to estimate amount to effect all the people wearing the same uniform probably about 20, so a 50 shift ritual.
I tend to think this type of thing is meaningless - if nothing else, the numbers simply get too large. The first ritual is going to have to cover far more than 50 zones. A zone is an area small enough to allow melee combat between inhabitants - not a significant fraction of a mile. The second ritual needs to pay for each officer targeted - with a military of ~2.2 million, the officers alone number somewhere over 100,000 - and you'll pay more than one shift each. Assuming you have appropriate symbolic links - which a generic uniform wouldn't supply in many cases.
If it has no mechanics, you can't interact with it using the rules.
Suppose I want to counterspell a "plot device". Which seems like a likely situation to me.
If there are no mechanics, then there's no way to know how hard it'll be to counterspell.
This seems to be either a disingenuous argument or a misunderstanding of "plot device" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_device) - "...an object or character in a story whose sole purpose is to advance the plot of the story, or alternatively to overcome some difficulty in the plot."
-
That can also be a good thing though, too, being able to break down a plot device into numbers takes away the mystery of it. Making it instead something that the players only have a partial understanding of, like that it must have taken a LOT of complexity and time to create, produces plot hooks itself. You know that with lots of complexity its going to take a long time to cast safely, so gives a rough deadline when the party has to disrupt the plans. I remember many years ago in my early military career being told that there will be inspections in the barracks sometime in the afternoon produced a hell of a lot more stress and tension than being told they were coming at 1600 haha.
Not having a definitive mechanic for the device also gives you as GM a lot more creative freedom in how to deal with it. I also know that some groups LOVE breaking down everything and looking for the angle so if your group likes that aspect then I guess it wouldn't hurt to work it out. I wouldn't personally though, its just my opinion.
-
This seems to be either a disingenuous argument or a misunderstanding of "plot device" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_device) - "...an object or character in a story whose sole purpose is to advance the plot of the story, or alternatively to overcome some difficulty in the plot."
Regardless of whether it's just there to advance the plot or not, players will sometimes need to be able to interact with it.
Suppose I introduce a random nameless NPC police officer who's just in the story to deliver a message. (He's obviously a plot device.) A player self-Compels an Aspect to get into a fight with him. Now I need to know his initiative and his combat skills if I want to run the fight. (Fortunately, I can make those up quickly and easily.)
Same situation here. Unless you're railroading very effectively, your players will occasionally interact with things you didn't expect them to. And then, you have a choice between stats and handwaving everything. The latter won't always work, though it often it'll be just fine.
So plot devices will need stats from time to time.
PS: By that definition, essentially every NPC is a plot device. And obviously some NPCs should have stats. So why is "plot device" used as a term for statless characters? Because almost nobody uses that definition around here.
-
Regardless of whether it's just there to advance the plot or not, players will sometimes need to be able to interact with it.
Suppose I introduce a random nameless NPC police officer who's just in the story to deliver a message. (He's obviously a plot device.) A player self-Compels an Aspect to get into a fight with him. Now I need to know his initiative and his combat skills if I want to run the fight. (Fortunately, I can make those up quickly and easily.)
Heh, my answer: "Your uppercut takes the cop by surprise and knocks him out. You now have an unconscious cop at your feet and, probably, a bit of trouble in your future. What are you doing now?"
To me, the point of a compel isn't a random fight, it's the complications that stem from the action. And, if the fight isn't important, I'm not going to waste a lot of time on it.
Same situation here. Unless you're railroading very effectively, your players will occasionally interact with things you didn't expect them to. And then, you have a choice between stats and handwaving everything. The latter won't always work, though it often it'll be just fine.
Nah...they try something they succeed more often than not. (They're heroes after all!) Don't need to put them on tracks to avoid what you call handwaving. Let them succeed! The consequences, even of success, are fun. ;)
So plot devices will need stats from time to time.
PS: By that definition, essentially every NPC is a plot device. And obviously some NPCs should have stats. So why is "plot device" used as a term for statless characters? Because almost nobody uses that definition around here.
Don't think we're using the same definition of "plot device". An NPC can be an ally, a neutral / scenery, an obstacle, an antagonist, or a plot device. Though I tend to dislike NPC plot devices - they often feel too contrived. When it comes down to it, I don't really want an NPC pushing the narrative - rather have the PCs / players doing so.
-
A plot device is a writing tool, distinct and different than a character or NPC. Its something that serves no purpose than to further the plot. You can still interact with a plot device, but those interactions should really only be limited to dealing with parts of it. In the example used by the OP, the ritual itself is the plot device, and the objectives used to defeat it are the parts of the story being interacted with. This might include tracking down a tome used to research a weakness for the ritual, defeating minions of the master antogonist, who is trying to finish or maintain the ritual, breaking down magical defences set up to stop the players getting to the 'core' of the ritual's power source, and then hitting the master antagonist in the rude bits. The ritual can then be shut down by pushing 'The Button' or by using a previously obtained 'Macguffin'.
Another type of plot device.
-
Heh, my answer: "Your uppercut takes the cop by surprise and knocks him out. You now have an unconscious cop at your feet and, probably, a bit of trouble in your future. What are you doing now?"
That can work, but some people like fighting. And if the fight is one they can't realistically win, then it's impolite to handwave the defeat of your players.
Suppose a player attacks Mab. I'm not going to declare him a winner instantly. But defeating him by GM fiat is just not nice. So you need stats.
So handwaves don't always work. They especially don't work if the challenge of defeating the plot device sounds fun. And trying to end a magical time loop sounds like fun to me.
Don't think we're using the same definition of "plot device". An NPC can be an ally, a neutral / scenery, an obstacle, an antagonist, or a plot device. Though I tend to dislike NPC plot devices - they often feel too contrived. When it comes down to it, I don't really want an NPC pushing the narrative - rather have the PCs / players doing so.
I wrote up a response, then deleted it when I realized I didn't actually care. Define the word plot however you choose. Just don't expect me to have the foggiest clue what you're talking about.
PS: Your comment about what Compels are about seems weird to me. Why does it matter what Compels are about to you? Your idiosyncrasies are, so far as I can tell, entirely meaningless to this conversation.
-
That can work, but some people like fighting. And if the fight is one they can't realistically win, then it's impolite to handwave the defeat of your players.
Suppose a player attacks Mab. I'm not going to declare him a winner instantly. But defeating him by GM fiat is just not nice. So you need stats.
So handwaves don't always work. They especially don't work if the challenge of defeating the plot device sounds fun. And trying to end a magical time loop sounds like fun to me.
Have to disagree - I find that kind of faux battle simply dishonest. Unless you're giving them a chance to actually win it's just being hit by a locomotive.
PS: Your comment about what Compels are about seems weird to me. Why does it matter what Compels are about to you? Your idiosyncrasies are, so far as I can tell, entirely meaningless to this conversation.
While I realize it doesn't happen often on the internet, knowing a frame of reference promotes understanding. It's the "Minority Report" premise in small scale.
-
Have to disagree - I find that kind of faux battle simply dishonest. Unless you're giving them a chance to actually win it's just being hit by a locomotive.
While I realize it doesn't happen often on the internet, knowing a frame of reference promotes understanding. It's the "Minority Report" premise in small scale.
And I have to disagree, no chance of outright victory in the current encounter doesn't make it a faux battle. You still, though your actions, determine the totality of the circumstances of your defeat. Forcing a hand wave removes agency.
-
Have to disagree - I find that kind of faux battle simply dishonest. Unless you're giving them a chance to actually win it's just being hit by a locomotive.
The best GM I ever knew would throw no-win scenarios at us once in a while. It was a matter of knowing when it was a bad idea to pick a fight. Come to think of it a social conflict system might have served us well in those situations.
-
Picking a fight with Mab, especially during the season of winter should be exactly like getting hit with a locomotive. It doesnt end well. If I'm not mistaken WoJ is that it would take the entire White Council to beat her. OW doesnt have stats on alot of the supernatural heavyweights exactly for this reason. Which doesnt mean you couldnt let your player roll something to base their terrible outcome on. Maybe rolling a Legendary ++ attack roll gets you a sweet gig as a hellhound while a Good roll gets you turned into a snowman.
-
Have to disagree - I find that kind of faux battle simply dishonest. Unless you're giving them a chance to actually win it's just being hit by a locomotive.
I think the other guys covered this pretty well.
While I realize it doesn't happen often on the internet, knowing a frame of reference promotes understanding. It's the "Minority Report" premise in small scale.
You came here to tell ways and means (and me) that what we're doing is meaningless. Not that you wouldn't use it in your games. So the way you play doesn't matter.
-
You came here to tell ways and means (and me) that what we're doing is meaningless. Not that you wouldn't use it in your games. So the way you play doesn't matter.
Wow. Wrong, but not sure there's much point left in conversation.
-
Wrong how?
You said
I tend to think this type of thing is meaningless...
-
Wrong how?
I stated a personal opinion*, followed it with why that's my opinion (numbers get too large), and then tried to help come up with 'back of the napkin' numbers (lots of zones, ~100k officers).
Believe it or not, it was an attempt to help.
*I can't see ever running a million shift ritual. Not even going to run a 100k shift ritual and kind of doubt I'll ever even get to 1k. So yes, for gaming purposes those numbers are meaningless to me. It's not the kind of game I'm playing.
-
I was wondering how high the complexity people would give plot device rituals?
Lets not get carried away by our ego's and ruin a perfectly good discussion on methods of story telling (which is what DFRPG is about, I remind you). As above the OP was asking people's opinions on creating plot device rituals. The key words we're working with are Ritual and Plot Device.
One side is detailing how they would handle a high complexity Ritual. The other is detailing how they would handle a Plot Device.
They don't have to be mutually exclusive, but they can be. There's no right or wrong way to handle it, and it really is a context sensitive process. Is the ritual meant to be interacted with using numbers and rules to allow a relatively powerful PC to shine in his spellcraft epeen? Is it meant to be a party effort to combat an evil wizard enacting his Big Plan?
If the latter, there's no real point in working out all the details this way as there's not much of a story in rolling playing it, rather than role playing it. If the former, it makes a great way for a hero to bat aside the feeble evil sorcerer's magicks so the rest of the party can stick a knife in him and end his Big Plan. It can be run as both too, to counter spell it would require massive amounts of complexity shifts as well, this too can be the source of some great story ideas.
This should just be a discussion on how YOU would handle it, not how WE should handle it. GMs are allowed to bend the rules, or ignore them outright, if it means getting a good story. Some of the best games I've had (played or run) always involved elements that weren't covered by a set of rules.
-
I stated a personal opinion...
Didn't sound like an opinion to me.
That aside, I find things like
...(which is what DFRPG is about, I remind you)...
mildly annoying. It's stating a One True Way to play, and it's doing it without seeming to notice.
Regardless of what you mean scene X to be about, your players are liable to completely disregard that. So even if your "plot device" is not intended to be interacted with according to the rules, you'll sometimes need stats for when people don't follow your plot.
Fortunately, making up stats is really easy in this game.
-
Oh, I noticed. I noticed a lot of other things too, which seems to just prove my point. Which was you can have all these rules debates without the personal jibes and snide remarks everyone is throwing about, debunking others opinions or interpretations as foolish, and generally trying to show everyone who has the bigger epeen. That last comment, for example would be far more constructive if you simply started with 'Regardless of what you mean scene X etc' and leave the previous comments to yourself you'll find the thread stays on topic more and the discussion stays helpful and informative. Which is why a lot of us come here to read for. It's not cool to have to wade through lines of fluff to find the real content.
PS Not just having a go at you Sanct, most of the regular posters seem to be guilty of this.
-
Don't worry about having a go at me, I have a thick skin.
That said, I can assure you that I'm not trying to show off here. This is just my personality. I'm rarely intentionally rude, but I'm pretty blunt. And I've got self-confidence to spare.
PS: I like the posters here. Maybe it's aforementioned thick skin, but I rarely feel as though they're snarking at me. And I haven't seen much ego.
As for debunking other people's opinions, that's an important part of what a forum is for. Or at least, it's an important part of what I'm here for. If people weren't willing to take apart my arguments, I'm not going to learn much.
-
Here's an example of a plot device, but first I'll set the scene:
Following a numerous compels on one PC's HC (Special Investigations Lead Detective) and Trouble (Unbelieving Bureaucracy) over several chapters and another PC's habit of mouthing off to the police, there's a major reaction from the police. There practically has to be - things (including of the long running themes) have been building and building and if nothing happens now then there's a huge plausibility gap if nothing huge happens. The group is currently split, taking care of different things, and the GM has the PC who's a police officer make a contacts roll.
The net result is the PC who's a police officer calls another PC and says: "They're pinning this whole mess on you. You can expect the tactical unit, SWAT, the FBI, Homeland Security, and maybe a hundred local cops to come to your door as soon as they get their warrants. You've got maybe an hour.".
The raid - it's a plot device. There's no way to stop it. There's no effective way to fight it. A small army of heavily armed, nervous people are going to show up and if the PCs try to fight then it's the battle of the Alamo or Butch Cassidy's last stand. Even if you can take out fifty or sixty goons the others will fill you full of led and they will be shooting to kill - especially if "officer down" has been called. With that many people involved, any PC who's there when the raid happens is going to go quietly or in a blaze of glory.
So the question is, how do the PCs react to the raid? Do they run, go underground, hide out, veil and watch the operation, use this as a distraction to hit another target, have sniper positioned to take out officer Rat Face (long standing NPC who's behind the raid), or do they do something else?
And a complication - if they run and leave the apartment like it is, the lab boys will find all sorts of evidence of weird stuff, enough to keep the investigation going for weeks (or months) but if there's no evidence the investigation will eventual peter out - so there would be no need for everyone to get fake IDs and move to another city.
How many cops are involved in the raid and how preciously are they armed? That's irrelevant - they have enough to gack anyone who resists arrest. That's why the raid is a plot as opposed to a balanced encounter.
Richard
-
That example doesn't hold up, Richard.
First, because some people might want to fight the police. And some people might win. Depending on how the police army is written up, one of the PCs in the PbP I GM might be able to take them all out with one spell.
(Evocation area attacks are incredibly good.)
If anyone's even going to try, than stats will be needed. And if your players want to try, then you can't really stop them. Railroading is hard, after all.
Second, because stats aren't just about combat. Suppose I decide to hide under a veil. What kind of Alertness do the cops have? If you don't give stats to the cops, then there's no way for anyone to try hiding from them or talking them into not attacking or whatever within the rules.
-
That example doesn't hold up, Richard.
First, because some people might want to fight the police. And some people might win. Depending on how the police army is written up, one of the PCs in the PbP I GM might be able to take them all out with one spell.
(Evocation area attacks are incredibly good.)
And then what?
I think that's a more pertinent point than whether it's possible to fight the cops and win. One person curbstomps dozens of highly trained police officers and...the local authorities just give up? People tend to react when what amounts to a major battle breaks out and one person ends up winning it single-handedly. You'd get all kinds of unwanted attention, for a start.
Second, because stats aren't just about combat. Suppose I decide to hide under a veil. What kind of Alertness do the cops have? If you don't give stats to the cops, then there's no way for anyone to try hiding from them or talking them into not attacking or whatever within the rules.
This I agree with, though. The cops should have stats because you don't know how the players will react to the scenario.
-
And then what?
I think that's a more pertinent point than whether it's possible to fight the cops and win. One person curbstomps dozens of highly trained police officers and...the local authorities just give up? People tend to react when what amounts to a major battle breaks out and one person ends up winning it single-handedly. You'd get all kinds of unwanted attention, for a start.
So, you've managed to defeat the Youngest Gruff, have you?
When one person curbstomps a Gruff, do their Brothers just give up?
...
-
That example doesn't hold up, Richard.
It does.
You might not like plot devices, but they work.
First, because some people might want to fight the police. And some people might win. Depending on how the police army is written up, one of the PCs in the PbP I GM might be able to take them all out with one spell.
Take out hundreds of people in front of the house, behind the house, on both sides of the house, down the street from the house, an in the mobile command centre? With one spell?
I'd love to see the math on that one.
If anyone's even going to try, than stats will be needed. And if your players want to try, then you can't really stop them. Railroading is hard, after all.
I'm sorry, I forgot that DFRPG is the game without consequences. Where after numerous compels on one PC's HC (Special Investigations Lead Detective) and Trouble (Unbelieving Bureaucracy) over several chapters and another PC's habit of mouthing off to the police - nothing happens. The police ignore the PCs' actions entirely.
Or to put it another way, if there is railroading going on in that example it's because the PCs building the railroad and chartered a train.
Now if the example had read "The GM decides that the PCs should do a jailbreak session because of a movie he just saw and sends in the cops to arrest them all" then that would be railroading - but ignoring the results of the PCs' actions can be worse for a game than railroading them into a scene.
Second, because stats aren't just about combat. Suppose I decide to hide under a veil. What kind of Alertness do the cops have? If you don't give stats to the cops, then there's no way for anyone to try hiding from them or talking them into not attacking or whatever within the rules.
If you really need a stat in the middle of an encounter, make it up. The PCs hiding under a veil was one of the options I listed. If they decide to go on the run from the cops, then that's the branching point in the story.
Once they've made that decision, then why call for a roll? See page 309 for why that roll wouldn't matter. The game has already switched to "terrorists on the run" or "America's Most Wanted" so what's the interesting outcomes if they fail or succeed?
Richard
-
Take out hundreds of people in front of the house, behind the house, on both sides of the house, down the street from the house, an in the mobile command centre? With one spell?
I'd love to see the math on that one.
It's called 'a decently strong ward'.
I'm sorry, I forgot that DFRPG is the game without consequences. Where after numerous compels on one PC's HC (Special Investigations Lead Detective) and Trouble (Unbelieving Bureaucracy) over several chapters and another PC's habit of mouthing off to the police - nothing happens. The police ignore the PCs' actions entirely.
If that isn't blatant misrepresentation, I don't know what is.
Try again, Richard.
Those collective compels got the police to show up in (seemingly overwhelming) force. What happens after that is susceptible to the actions of the PCs. And those actions MIGHT be 'blow them all to kingdom come'.
Of course, I would thoroughly expect more compels to follow if the PCs really did take that route, but it IS a valid route (for a certain value thereof), and denying it by calling that, essentially, swarm of mook cops (since they are by no means comprised even substantially of meaningful characters) a 'plot device', and thus not meaningfully susceptible to physical attack, IS railroading.
-
It's called 'a decently strong ward'.
Not the magic skill he mentioned, and the landmines in a ward tend to "take out" people in a fatal way... But that's lawbreakers for you.
If that isn't blatant misrepresentation, I don't know what is.
Actually, it's a plot device borrowed from a novel. During the series there were enough "the cop friend fixes things" and there was a long term antagonist NPC cop. Eventually things reached the point where it would not be plausible for the police not to take action.
And when the police take action, they don't go for balanced encounters. They use overwhelming force in the hopes that the bad guy will be smart enough not to try to shoot them.
Those collective compels got the police to show up in (seemingly overwhelming) force. What happens after that is susceptible to the actions of the PCs. And those actions MIGHT be 'blow them all to kingdom come'.
Of course, I would thoroughly expect more compels to follow if the PCs really did take that route, but it IS a valid route (for a certain value thereof), and denying it by calling that, essentially, swarm of mook cops (since they are by no means comprised even substantially of meaningful characters) a 'plot device', and thus not meaningfully susceptible to physical attack, IS railroading.
So the world should never respond to the PCs' actions in a plausible way?
Spend game after game getting a cop friend to "fix" things for your PC while antagonizing the authorities, make (and leave unresolved) an enemy in Internal Affairs, make the interaction a major theme of the game - and nothing happens to your PC - that's removing consequences from the game.
In your game, could I have a PC walk into a daycare and open up with automatic weapon while proclaiming his name and address - and specifying that any takeouts my PC does are fatal ones, without repercussions? Or could I say that when the police show up in overwhelming numbers "Dude, wtf? Why are you railroading me here? Anymore than two cops is overkill."?
Richard
-
Given that the police force described can fairly easily generate a several hundred shift collective attack*, I wonder what a 'decently strong ward' constitutes...?
*One mook cop with a pistol ~= 5 shift attack. One hundred mook cops = 5 shift attack +198 shifts from tagging 99 supporting fire aspects. Of course I'm making the assumption here that the NPC cops get to use the same (in my opinion abusive, but opinions vary) aspect proliferation that the PCs use.
-
In your game, could I have a PC walk into a daycare and open up with automatic weapon while proclaiming his name and address - and specifying that any takeouts my PC does are fatal ones, without repercussions? Or could I say that when the police show up in overwhelming numbers "Dude, wtf? Why are you railroading me here? Anymore than two cops is overkill."?
Richard
That isn't at all what he's saying, Richard. Not even close to what he's saying.
What he's saying is that yes, those consequences happen, but they're not "Bam, you lose, don't bother rolling" consequences. They're consequences that the players have to work against.
-
And then what?
In this particular example, the PC would get chewed out by a military associate of hers. If she was not appropriately conciliatory, this could lead to violence of a sneaky assassin-based variety.
Which would be a pretty fun story, I think.
There'd be other consequences too, but that one comes to mind first.
Take out hundreds of people in front of the house, behind the house, on both sides of the house, down the street from the house, an in the mobile command centre? With one spell?
I'd love to see the math on that one.
18 accuracy attack evocation, using 18 shifts of power to split it up over 9 zones at weapon rating 0. If the cops are not spread out enough, they're in trouble.
So the way that they are distributed is important.
So they need actual mechanics.
If you really need a stat in the middle of an encounter, make it up.
Either way, you're assigning stats. My point is that you have to do that one way or another.
Once they've made that decision, then why call for a roll? See page 309 for why that roll wouldn't matter. The game has already switched to "terrorists on the run" or "America's Most Wanted" so what's the interesting outcomes if they fail or succeed?
If they fail, the game shifts to "PCs on trial".
If they succeed, it goes the way you suggest.
Both success and failure ought to be interesting, so rolling is worthwhile. (That being said, things would not go the way described here with the PC I'm thinking of. Hiding from the cops would be too easy for her for it to make a good story on its own. But that's beside the point.)
One mook cop with a pistol ~= 5 shift attack. One hundred mook cops = 5 shift attack +198 shifts from tagging 99 supporting fire aspects. Of course I'm making the assumption here that the NPC cops get to use the same (in my opinion abusive, but opinions vary) aspect proliferation that the PCs use.
I don't let PCs use this sort of thing and I wouldn't let cops do it either. And that's entirely legal by the RAW, since GMs have authority over maneuver difficulty and aspect use.
-
Actually, it's a plot device borrowed from a novel. During the series there were enough "the cop friend fixes things" and there was a long term antagonist NPC cop. Eventually things reached the point where it would not be plausible for the police not to take action.
Harry CHOSE to let those cops break down his door. All he had to do to stop them was NOT take down his wards. That's not 'plot device', that's just pure, simple, common Compel.
And when the police take action, they don't go for balanced encounters. They use overwhelming force in the hopes that the bad guy will be smart enough not to try to shoot them.
They use overwhelming force as they understand it. Which simply doesn't stack up to the kind of thing that a well-built and well-played wizard can dish out relatively casually.
So the world should never respond to the PCs' actions in a plausible way?
It is quite plausible that the police force would raid the PCs' known haunts in substantial numbers with what they understand to be relatively overwhelming force. It is not reasonable that by doing so they magically deny the PCs' their supernatural ability to respond to comparatively petty threats.
Spend game after game getting a cop friend to "fix" things for your PC while antagonizing the authorities, make (and leave unresolved) an enemy in Internal Affairs, make the interaction a major theme of the game - and nothing happens to your PC - that's removing consequences from the game.
What happens to your PC is that the police raid your known residence. What happens when the police raid your known residence should not be 'rocks will fall, you cannot possibly win no matter how creative or well-prepared you happen to be'.
In your game, could I have a PC walk into a daycare and open up with automatic weapon while proclaiming his name and address - and specifying that any takeouts my PC does are fatal ones
Yes
, without repercussions?
No
Or could I say that when the police show up in overwhelming numbers "Dude, wtf? Why are you railroading me here? Anymore than two cops is overkill."?
Richard
No.
But you could say, 'I'm entirely willing to let those cops throw themselves into the meat grinder of my wards, please do continue' and then sit back and watch the fireworks.
Given that the police force described can fairly easily generate a several hundred shift collective attack*, I wonder what a 'decently strong ward' constitutes...?
*One mook cop with a pistol ~= 5 shift attack. One hundred mook cops = 5 shift attack +198 shifts from tagging 99 supporting fire aspects. Of course I'm making the assumption here that the NPC cops get to use the same (in my opinion abusive, but opinions vary) aspect proliferation that the PCs use.
That use of aspects certainly wouldn't pass a 'reasonableness test' from any table I sat at.
-
What he's saying is that yes, those consequences happen, but they're not "Bam, you lose, don't bother rolling" consequences. They're consequences that the players have to work against.
Looking back at the example, I listed ways that the PCs could react to the plot device. I'm sure I missed a few, the list was:
Do they run, go underground, hide out, veil and watch the operation, use this as a distraction to hit another target, have sniper positioned to take out officer Rat Face (long standing NPC who's behind the raid), or do they do something else?
In short, there was nothing "you lose" in that example. There was a "this is happen" a plot device bit, but the results of that plot device were up in the air.
If the PCs' actions have led to the FBI, ATF, state police, SWAT, Tactical Squad, etc showing up, then there is a "you can't win this fight" situation - one that the PCs have to work around in a non-combative way. Or there is a total disconnect between how the police respond to things and what happens in your game.
18 accuracy attack evocation, using 18 shifts of power to split it up over 9 zones at weapon rating 0. If the cops are not spread out enough, they're in trouble.
There are no win situations in life. The cops make a habit out making any planned arrest a no win situation for the other side. 30 - 40 cops will show up to arrest one drug dealer - and shoot his house full of holes if they feel they have a reason to.
You seem to be thinking in terms of a balanced (balanced to be hard, but still balanced) encounter. What happened in Changes (the inspiration for my example) wasn't a balanced encounter. It was overwhelming force. It was basically a plot device used to get Murphy and Harry together for the coming fight scene.
At its heart, this discussion is a conflict of philosophies. One side feels "If you remove the possibility of no win situations from your game, you are doing a disservice to your players" while the other side feels that there always has to be an out.
Why do I feel that no wins are needed? Because without them there is little to struggle against. Everything comes down "If I make this roll I'll win" situations, which means the drama comes from the dice rolls, not the story.
I'll draw an example from a book - if the Darkhallow had happened, the result would be a no win situation for every PC in Chicago. Thus the drama comes from trying to stop the event. Knowing that if your PCs fail to stop it, then it could be the end of the game, everyone makes a new PC, we set the next game in an alternative timeline where the White Council still exists - that adds drama to the PCs' choices.
The plot device ritual from Changes was similar. When that ritual went off, no force in the DV could protect anyone it targeted. None. Making it a "prevent that or die" situation.
Summer Knight had two plot devices that were linked. "Fail to stop the Queens from going ahead to head" and the world would be destroyed. "Fail to complete the challenge from the White Council" and Harry would be handed over to the Red Court.
If those stakes weren't on the table, would the challenge have been as important?
Richard
-
Harry CHOSE to let those cops break down his door. All he had to do to stop them was NOT take down his wards. That's not 'plot device', that's just pure, simple, common Compel.
But his choices were limited based on his previous actions. He had already specified that the wards would use lethal force on zombies, RCV, etc trying to break through the door. At that point his choice was "kill a lot of cops or take down the wards".
I don't see a compel there - I see a choice.
They use overwhelming force as they understand it. Which simply doesn't stack up to the kind of thing that a well-built and well-played wizard can dish out relatively casually.
Using enough force to take out a terrorist, mad bomber, etc is up there. Any "officer down" would have increased the force, even if the officer was taken down in a non-lethal way.
The first sign of resistance and they would have been shooting to killing.
It is quite plausible that the police force would raid the PCs' known haunts in substantial numbers with what they understand to be relatively overwhelming force. It is not reasonable that by doing so they magically deny the PCs' their supernatural ability to respond to comparatively petty threats.
Hundreds of cops is a petty threat?
What happens to your PC is that the police raid your known residence. What happens when the police raid your known residence should not be 'rocks will fall, you cannot possibly win no matter how creative or well-prepared you happen to be'.
Look back to the example I typed up. You should see how it doesn't say "and the PCs automatically go to jail" but lists alternatives to entering a fight that they cannot win.
But you could say, 'I'm entirely willing to let those cops throw themselves into the meat grinder of my wards, please do continue' and then sit back and watch the fireworks.
How many levels of Lawbreaker would that bring?
And looking at it logically: once the first wave died, the second wave wouldn't go forward. That's when the tactical weapons would be used. If they had to level your house, they would.
That use of aspects certainly wouldn't pass a 'reasonableness test' from any table I sat at.
But one man taking on hundreds and winning - that passes your reasonableness test?
There's a reason why police don't send officers arrest suspects one on one - it's the advantage that numbers give you. Taking away those real world type responses is shield your PCs from the fallout of their actions.
Richard
-
There are no win situations in life. The cops make a habit out making any planned arrest a no win situation for the other side. 30 - 40 cops will show up to arrest one drug dealer - and shoot his house full of holes if they feel they have a reason to.
You seem to be thinking in terms of a balanced (balanced to be hard, but still balanced) encounter. What happened in Changes (the inspiration for my example) wasn't a balanced encounter. It was overwhelming force. It was basically a plot device used to get Murphy and Harry together for the coming fight scene.
My point is, what you suggested is not overwhelming force for everyone.
200 cops is a lot, but depending on how they're arranged they might get squished.
At its heart, this discussion is a conflict of philosophies. One side feels "If you remove the possibility of no win situations from your game, you are doing a disservice to your players" while the other side feels that there always has to be an out.
I'm not on either of those sides.
I'm okay with no-win situations, but I don't mind playing without them.
And I understand that even a no-win situation needs numbers if you intend to use the rules for it.
PS: The ability of wizards to kill hundreds with a single spell really isn't in question. It happens in the novels, and the mechanics support it.
-
I don't let PCs use this sort of thing and I wouldn't let cops do it either. And that's entirely legal by the RAW, since GMs have authority over maneuver difficulty and aspect use.
As long as you apply that same authority to limit to the preparation stage of thaumaturgy, then great! And this should also mean that you never have the sort of 400-shift "extremely high complexity rituals" that formed the premise of this thread.
Allowing neither side to abuse aspect proliferation is good. Allowing both to use it ... well, that's "fair", but probably not very fun for anyone. Allowing one side to use it but not the other results in situations where a "decent" ward can defeat an army.
-
I'm okay with no-win situations, but I don't mind playing without them.
And I understand that even a no-win situation needs numbers if you intend to use the rules for it.
PS: The ability of wizards to kill hundreds with a single spell really isn't in question. It happens in the novels, and the mechanics support it.
The rules explicitly refers to plot devices. For example, how of a spell can Mab cast? Plot device. Since plot devices are part of the rules it follows that they do not need to be further defined.
Killing hundreds of mortals (like cops) is possible - if you are the Blackstaff. Otherwise you are looking negative refresh due to lawbreaker.
Richard
-
As long as you apply that same authority to limit to the preparation stage of thaumaturgy, then great! And this should also mean that you never have the sort of 400-shift "extremely high complexity rituals" that formed the premise of this thread.
Unfortunately, human sacrifice still works. And there are other issues with thaumaturgy.
Worth mentioning that the premise of the thread was working out whether such rituals were actually 400 shifts or not. The thread has drifted.
Allowing neither side to abuse aspect proliferation is good. Allowing both to use it ... well, that's "fair", but probably not very fun for anyone. Allowing one side to use it but not the other results in situations where a "decent" ward can defeat an army.
For what it's worth, the novels contain an instance where a ward stops an army cold. The wizards who cast that ward were stronger than most PCs, of course, but the army was also a lot stronger than the one in question here.
The rules explicitly refers to plot devices.
And yet, they suggest numbers for Mab. Because you might need them.
Killing hundreds of mortals (like cops) is possible - if you are the Blackstaff. Otherwise you are looking negative refresh due to lawbreaker.
Killing's not necessary. Remember how the take-out rules work. Sleep spells work, and breaking everyone's arms and legs seems fair too.
On the other hand, Lawbreaker's fine too.
-
/steps out of the lurking clouds
There's also the fact that killing that many mortals in one single moment. Would bring in either the warden's if your unlucky, Or possibly the Blackstaff and or Gatekeeper if your incredibly unlucky. Wizards can kill allot of people sure, but most of them don't because they like having their heads attached to their shoulders. Death by Warden sword would be very unpleasant would it not?
Killing's not necessary of course, but in that example, would there be time for less leathal means to bring allot of cops down and not break any laws of the magic kind?
I myself find myself on the opinion that a well done plot device, one that is a natural cause of events or so well done you can't even tell it's a plot device at first glance, are incredibly useful of making a fun story and session. Same for No-win Situations, it's a good way to show realism when done well.
Of course a badly done plot device can simply be well boring and the GM trying to rail road. A Badly done no-win Situation is simply cheap, annoying and a quick way to make a Session crash and burn.
-
There's also the fact that killing that many mortals in one single moment. Would bring in either the warden's if your unlucky, Or possibly the Blackstaff and or Gatekeeper if your incredibly unlucky.
Sounds like fun.
I like it when my players get themselves into trouble.
-
Sounds like fun.
I like it when my players get themselves into trouble.
Sound exactly like our GM, We're still trying to sort the mess after Two PC's accidentally caused a jail break.. in a Never Never prison.. A very dangerous monster got loose.
..But I digress. Getting into trouble is fun, and no-win situations can cause allot of trouble and thus fun when done well.
-
But his choices were limited based on his previous actions. He had already specified that the wards would use lethal force on zombies, RCV, etc trying to break through the door. At that point his choice was "kill a lot of cops or take down the wards".
I don't see a compel there - I see a choice.
The cops coming to break down Harry's door is the (presumably accepted) compel. Harry taking down his wards is (part of) his response to that compel.
Depending on his aspects at the time, he might also have had a compel further limiting his options away from using lethal force (ie. leaving the wards in place), but that's more difficult to tell.
Hundreds of cops is a petty threat?
Hundreds of mortal cops, who know virtually nothing, even collectively, about the supernatural world, splattering themselves like bugs on the windshield of your (easily) twenty-odd-shift (and still reasonably substantially higher) ward is a relatively petty threat, yes.
The police force has no meaningful capacity to predict or respond in a setting-consistent manner to a house that's effectively protected by a seemingly impenetrable force field of death, destruction, and magic.
Look back to the example I typed up. You should see how it doesn't say "and the PCs automatically go to jail" but lists alternatives to entering a fight that they cannot win.
But they CAN win, if they have enough preparation and are willing to make that choice. That's what I'm contesting.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't use no-win scenarios on occasion (though I think that they're generally done poorly and there are many GMs who should avoid them on principle because they're simply incapable of handling them appropriately), I'm saying that this isn't one.
How many levels of Lawbreaker would that bring?
Probably 3. Because that's where Lawbreaker caps per law.
It could be more if you're killing the horde of mooks in a way that breaks multiple laws simultaneously, but that'd be kind of silly.
And looking at it logically: once the first wave died, the second wave wouldn't go forward. That's when the tactical weapons would be used. If they had to level your house, they would.
And in the time it takes them to call in the national guard, and/or get the authorization for the use of that level of force in the middle of a densely populated area (most militaries from first-world countries tend to have some reluctance to launch an air strike on their own cities), you've won the encounter.
But one man taking on hundreds and winning - that passes your reasonableness test?
When that one man can personally, casually toss out effects on par with military-grade heavy weapons, and has established in the story to date that they've put significant effort into the fortification of their place of residence such that it packs even more punch than that and can continue to deliver it over a prolonged period?
Yes.
Would you allow a Loup-Garou decimating a mob of hundreds of villagers armed with torches and pitch-forks to pass a reasonableness test? Or would you allow a 'cumulative attack' by those villagers using tags from 'moral support' maneuvers to GM-fiat-away that pesky Physical Immunity? (an exaggerated comparison, but not one that I feel overly so; the villagers individually have 0 chance to meaningfully so much as slow the Loup-Garou / the mook cops individually have 0 plausible chance to so much as dent the wards)
There's a reason why police don't send officers arrest suspects one on one - it's the advantage that numbers give you. Taking away those real world type responses is shield your PCs from the fallout of their actions.
Richard
Who's suggesting taking away the possibility of mortal police forces responding in 'overwhelming' numbers? I'm just saying that mundane understandings of what 'overwhelming numbers' actually are will likely lead to a mass slaughter if the PCs choose to go that route, and that that choice is a valid one and should not be railroaded out of their grasp by some misguided GM declaration that a certain number of npc mooks somehow magically congeals into a 'plot device' that cannot be contended with even when the rules that would otherwise govern the encounter would seem to say that doing so is pathetically simple.
-
Killing's not necessary. Remember how the take-out rules work. Sleep spells work, and breaking everyone's arms and legs seems fair too.
I was replying to your
PS: The ability of wizards to kill hundreds with a single spell really isn't in question. It happens in the novels, and the mechanics support it."
- which is why I continued on the killing theme. If you didn't want to talk about killing, then why raise the subject?
I'm not saying that you shouldn't use no-win scenarios on occasion (though I think that they're generally done poorly and there are many GMs who should avoid them on principle because they're simply incapable of handling them appropriately), I'm saying that this isn't one.
Rather than to debate this example, why not offer an example of your own? What do you see as a no-win situation?
Probably 3. Because that's where Lawbreaker caps per law.
Lawbreaker can (and in some cases should) be taken more than 3 times. After you cap the bonus at +2:
"Every three times that you break this law past that point, another (different) aspect must be changed, though the refresh cost and spellcasting bonus do not further increase."
So again, how many times would Lawbreaker be taken for slaughtering hundreds of cops with a ward? Enough to change all seven of the PC's aspects?
when the rules that would otherwise govern the encounter would seem to say that doing so is pathetically simple.
It's pathetically simple to kill hundreds of cops? Sorry, I don't accept that as a blanket statement.
Richard
-
So again, how many times would Lawbreaker be taken for slaughtering hundreds of cops with a ward? Enough to change all seven of the PC's aspects?
My preferred answer: many times over. 200 cops would be 66 alterations to the wizard's aspects, meaning about 9 changes to each aspect -- resulting in every aspect being a variation on the theme of "I'm a Sith Lord!!1!".
However, I don't think this is actually how the mechanics work. The RAW refers to breaking the Law "on three or more occasions" and "for every three occasions a Law is broken" (my emphasis, YS233-234). So a single spell that kills 10 million people would be one occasion of breaking the Law, and therefore one Lawbreaker stunt (and a recommended but not mandatory aspect change).
I can certainly see room for house rules to alter this, of course.
-
"Every three times that you break this law past that point, another (different) aspect must be changed, though the refresh cost and spellcasting bonus do not further increase."
That's not what most people would understand as 'taking Lawbreaker'. Most people would understand 'taking Lawbreaker' as the mandatory spending of Refresh on the Lawbreaker power.
(and you're right, I confused the maximum bonus with the number of times that mandatory refresh cost is inflicted for a given Law)
So again, how many times would Lawbreaker be taken for slaughtering hundreds of cops with a ward? Enough to change all seven of the PC's aspects?
Becq covered this well enough.
It's pathetically simple to kill hundreds of cops? Sorry, I don't accept that as a blanket statement.
Mook stress and consequence tracks + substantial ritual = lots of dead mooks
-
I was replying to your - which is why I continued on the killing theme. If you didn't want to talk about killing, then why raise the subject?
I'm fine with talking about killing, it's just that I thought you were bringing up Lawbreaker as a way to make it harder to take out a hundred cops.
-
I'm fine with talking about killing, it's just that I thought you were bringing up Lawbreaker as a way to make it harder to take out a hundred cops.
No, you're the one who brought it up. That said, I can't think of a spell that would break that many arms and legs without endangering lives. Not one that would pass the table test.
That's not what most people would understand as 'taking Lawbreaker'. Most people would understand 'taking Lawbreaker' as the mandatory spending of Refresh on the Lawbreaker power.
(and you're right, I confused the maximum bonus with the number of times that mandatory refresh cost is inflicted for a given Law)
The rule is crystal clear that it is taken first to increase your bonus then to change your aspects. I can't help it if you haven't read that rule.
Becq covered this well enough.
It doesn't say "per scene" but refers to each occasion that the PC decides to break a law.
After the first cop does his "pound on the door and say police" he explodes due to the ward the PC has the option to lower the wards. 1st occasion
If PC decides to keep up the wards, the first wave of cops hits them an blows up - a set of deaths that the PC chose to allow. 2nd occasion
And so on.
Mook stress and consequence tracks + substantial ritual = lots of dead mooks
A couple of hundred cops show up - and you have a "substantial ritual" that can be prepped and cast in one exchange to kill them?
And again, what do you consider an example of a no-win situation?
Richard
-
...I can't think of a spell that would break that many arms and legs without endangering lives. Not one that would pass the table test.
This is a matter of playstyle, really. Not possible to argue.
The archetypal no-win situation for me is:
An enemy wizard gets a symbolic link to you offscreen and messes you up with thaumaturgy from a safe distance.
Of course, that will rarely be fun. But rarely is not never.
-
This is a matter of playstyle, really. Not possible to argue.
The archetypal no-win situation for me is:
An enemy wizard gets a symbolic link to you offscreen and messes you up with thaumaturgy from a safe distance.
Of course, that will rarely be fun. But rarely is not never.
So think of that as a plot device. Greg the Evil wizard has a link and is planning to cast that ritual - unless you can stop him.
Or just say that Victor the evil half trained warlock has your hair and will use it the next time that there's lightning to tap. Bam - there's a plot device in the story. Better yet, have the evil dude hit others with that spell so that the PCs know that the spell is plot device strong, then have one of them get attacked by someone who rips out some hair and runs for it. Then they know for sure that they need to get the hair back or it's certain death for a PC.
Richard
-
Plot devices aren't necessarily 'no win'. Sometimes they're simply a threat you can't deal with directly.
18 accuracy attack evocation, using 18 shifts of power to split it up over 9 zones at weapon rating 0. If the cops are not spread out enough, they're in trouble.
Actually, you can't make a power 0 attack so you'd have to reduce the number of zones. That's probably not going to be a problem since you're also limited by line of sight. You're not going to see three sides of the house at once...well, not w/o scrying tools which you (usually) can't cast through.
-----
I'm in general agreement with Richard on this. A plot device, by definition, is something you don't need stats for...it just happens and you deal with the results. Whether it's a Death Star, a One Ring, Demonreach, an Archive who knows everything, the lead up to a Darkhallow ritual or perhaps even death itself - they just exist...you deal with it or the consequences it causes. Eventually you may find a weakness or a way of dealing with or preventing it but even then it's probably a Gordian knot type of solution. :)
-
So think of that as a plot device. Greg the Evil wizard has a link and is planning to cast that ritual - unless you can stop him.
But that's not no-win.
I mean, it's a decent story. But it's not the one I was talking about. I was thinking of a story where someone you've never heard of attacks you from offscreen. You eat a 20-shift attack ritual and there ain't nothing you can do about it.
Which, as I said, would rarely be fun. But I can think of a couple ways for it to work well.
Actually, you can't make a power 0 attack so you'd have to reduce the number of zones. That's probably not going to be a problem since you're also limited by line of sight. You're not going to see three sides of the house at once...well, not w/o scrying tools which you (usually) can't cast through.
It's not a 0-power spell. It's an 18-power spell with all 18 shifts invested in area of effect. Is that still illegal?
Anyway, the thing about three sides of the house just goes to show what I'm saying. If you don't nail down things like where the cops are and what they can do, you can't meaningfully interact with them.
I'm in general agreement with Richard on this. A plot device, by definition, is something you don't need stats for...it just happens and you deal with the results. Whether it's a Death Star, a One Ring, Demonreach, an Archive who knows everything, the lead up to a Darkhallow ritual or perhaps even death itself - they just exist...you deal with it or the consequences it causes. Eventually you may find a weakness or a way of dealing with or preventing it but even then it's probably a Gordian knot type of solution. :)
Suppose I'm wearing the One Ring. A guy is trying to shoot me. I put the ring on.
What happens?
Without stats, you can't answer that question within the rules of the game.
It's okay if Mab tosses out 100-shift attacks. But she can't toss out X-shift attacks, because X is a letter and you need a number in order to actually play out the fight.
There's a reason that the Mab write up in OW says, "If you need numbers, assume blah blah blah". (I'm paraphrasing.)
Sometimes you need numbers.
-
As long as the cops are pure mook-grade NPCs and they concentrate themselves into a fairly small number of zones, then even a fairly modest evocation is enough to take them down. For example, if you define "the front yard" as a zone, and "the back yard" as a second zone, and stipulated that the 200 cops were packing themselves into those two zones to get into the house, then all you would need is maybe a 5 shift evocation (assumptions: weapon:1, 2 zone spell with control of 7 or so vs cops with armor:2, defense or perhaps 2, and no consequences).
However, I think that this is poor application of zone rules, and downright silly tactics on the part of the cops. My thinking is that every half-dozen targets, tops, should constitute a "zone" (redefining the zones for tightly packed masses as needed -- ), and that in any case the cops would be fairly spread out even without this sort of adaptive zoning, enough that there would probably be fairly few zones with more than a handful of cops packed into them. So the 200 cops might require a 30-40 zone effect, which is ... non-trivial.
Sometimes you need numbers.
Agreed. But I think that Richard is trying to say is that sometimes it's best not to have numbers -- or that sometimes the numbers aren't relevant. And I agree with that.
Say, for example, a group of PCs learns that there is a nuclear warhead headed at them. It is valid for the GM to dictate that the only way to escape the blast is to not be in the fireball when it goes off (run like mad, escape into the Nevernever, or whatever) -- and that a magical shield of any strength that can be produced in the time available just won't cut it. In such a case, putting numbers to it is just throwing down the gauntlet for the rules lawyer in the party to prove you wrong.
-
It's not a 0-power spell. It's an 18-power spell with all 18 shifts invested in area of effect. Is that still illegal?
The book's statement is "Since you can't make a 0 power attack..." and goes on to say you have to have one shift of effect (i.e. attack) in the spell when splitting it up. The shifts designated to zones subtract from the attack rating so the spell's cost doesn't matter directly.
Suppose I'm wearing the One Ring. A guy is trying to shoot me. I put the ring on.
What happens?
Without stats, you can't answer that question within the rules of the game.
Err, just because we know the ring turned people invisible doesn't mean we know all the stats. If that's all it did the other ring bearers wouldn't be all that worried about it. ;)
Sometimes you need numbers.
Absolutely! I agree. Of course the corollary is "Sometimes you don't."
-
The rule is crystal clear that it is taken first to increase your bonus then to change your aspects. I can't help it if you haven't read that rule.
Lawbreaker is a power. One 'takes' powers when one purchases them with Refresh. When one has Lawbreaker, further instances of violations against that Law can result in the twisting of the character's aspects. This is not 'taking' the Lawbreaker power. As for your ad-hominem attacks, if you'd truly like to begin trading those, I would be perfectly content to accommodate you, but this site has rules about that sort of thing.
A couple of hundred cops show up - and you have a "substantial ritual" that can be prepped and cast in one exchange to kill them?
Wards are generally prepped and in place well before the conflict during which they shine. They don't need to be cast during that conflict. That is their purpose.
And again, what do you consider an example of a no-win situation?
Richard
I view true 'no-win' situations as almost exclusively bad ideas. 'Rocks fall' is used derisively for a reason.
A nuke? Probably a 'no-win' situation for anyone who sticks around, but there have been people who survived real-life nuclear blasts quite near to 'ground zero'. So, obviously there ARE ways to arrange matters that would allow for survival. Even there, those sorts of odds for survival, I believe, are best represented by hard numbers. It CAN be survived. You are immensely unlikely to succeed.
The assembled Queens of Faerie acting in concert? Even Mab flinched away from a simple iron nail.
Basically, I view most proper implementations of 'no-win' situations as instances of 'it CAN be done, but statistically, you won't succeed' and then supplying numbers, and the rationale behind them, to back up your claim (if your players request it; probably after the session so as not to unduly reveal important details as well as bog down the game session itself). And when your players get creative enough to prove you wrong, you get over it and give credit wherever its due for having managed to find a creative and involved group of players.
-
Err, just because we know the ring turned people invisible doesn't mean we know all the stats. If that's all it did the other ring bearers wouldn't be all that worried about it. ;)
If you want to use any effect of the ring, you need to know the stats of that effect.
For example, how does the ring corrupt people in mechanical terms? Aspect Compels? Feeding Dependency? Something new?
]Absolutely! I agree. Of course the corollary is "Sometimes you don't."
Well, sure.
But even if something is too powerful to successfully oppose in direct confrontation, you might need numbers. Leaving Mab unstatted is not very different from leaving Mac unstatted.
-
Wards are generally prepped and in place well before the conflict during which they shine. They don't need to be cast during that conflict. That is their purpose.
If you meant "The wards will kill every cop that assault your building" then why did you say:
Mook stress and consequence tracks + substantial ritual = lots of dead mooks
'Substantial ritual' implies that you are casting a substantial ritual to equal lots of dead mooks and...
No, I'm not going to do. You cite a rule, I point out that you're wrong about, you begin debating the semantics of debating a power - why go there?
This discussion is turning into another meaningless debate.
Instead, let's focus on the positive. We both agree there are times that there are no win situations. I disagree with undoing what happened after a game session has ended, but that's me.
Richard
PS: You might want to edit your post. You missed an 'end this quotation' after "2nd occasion
And so on."
-
I guess I don't really see the point in statting up creatures like Mab. If you've ever played Rifts (or other Palladium games), then Mab is throwing MDC attacks compared to the players SDC attacks. If players fight her, they can't win ... unless perhaps they have an "MDC-grade" plot device of their own. In DFRPG terms, any stats you give her will be too low.
Heck, there's RAW available for the mechanics of such a fight; you can find it on OW28, near the bottom right.
-
What if Mab had 150 000 in each skill and every printed power including 100 000 Refinements?
Would her stats still be too low?
Silly jokes aside:
Harry seems to do pretty well against her socially.
And she's physically vulnerable to iron.
And obviously it's possible to survive being her enemy.
So she's not invincible. Just really tough.
-
If you meant "The wards will kill every cop that assault your building" then why did you say:
'Substantial ritual' implies that you are casting a substantial ritual to equal lots of dead mooks and...
I guess I figured that the context of the discussion, which for my part had up until that point focused significantly on the use of wards to repel assault by large numbers of mortal mooks, would be enough to clue you in to the fact that the particular form of ritual I referenced there was, in fact, a ritual to create a substantial ward (+potentially landmines)
No, I'm not going to do. You cite a rule, I point out that you're wrong about, you begin debating the semantics of debating a power - why go there?
I've yet to see anything from you, rule or otherwise, that would lead me to the conclusion that a claim of 'a mob of mortal mooks, even a large mob armed with assault weapons, is NOT an undefeatable plot device' is incorrect. If you'd like to start stepping up to that plate, please, feel free.
Instead, let's focus on the positive. We both agree there are times that there are no win situations. I disagree with undoing what happened after a game session has ended, but that's me.
Where did I mention 'undoing' the events of a game session?
I said:
'have numbers, even if you think those numbers can't be beaten'
and
'when your players prove you wrong on that last one, get over it and be glad you have creative players'.
PS: You might want to edit your post. You missed an 'end this quotation' after "2nd occasion
And so on."
Thanks for the heads-up.
I had actually meant to leave that section out, it having been addressed by Becq and not meaningfully contested by you (minor differences stemming from the level of detail included in the examples, as I see it).
-
Where did I mention 'undoing' the events of a game session?
You said:
the rationale behind them, to back up your claim (if your players request it; probably after the session so as not to unduly reveal important details as well as bog down the game session itself)
So they only know why it was no-win after the fact - and if they point out a "but we could have..." then you "give credit wherever its due for having managed to find a creative and involved group of players.".
I've yet to see anything from you, rule or otherwise, that would lead me to the conclusion that a claim of 'a mob of mortal mooks, even a large mob armed with assault weapons, is NOT an undefeatable plot device' is incorrect. If you'd like to start stepping up to that plate, please, feel free.
I referred to hundreds of cops - FBI, SWAT, etc. If you want to view such as complete mooks, then that's fine with me.
But maybe I assumed that others would know how the police operate in situations like these. Note: basing this off of numerous reports, like http://militaryvideos.tv/news/continuing-swat-raid-errors-and-pranks (where 50 - 60 officers were dispatched to deal with a report of a hostage crisis) and of countless online reports of how search warrants are serviced on suspected drug dealers.
So here's an expanded version of: "They're pinning this whole mess on you. You can expect the tactical unit, SWAT, the FBI, Homeland Security, and maybe a hundred local cops to come to your door as soon as they get their warrants. You've got maybe an hour."
First - the standard "high risk search warrant" activity.
Units arrive at intersections surrounding house, cordoning them off to civilian traffic (reducing the number of people in the area) as the rest of the task force goes in. Units arrive in the front, back, and sides of the building with military precision. If they follow their SOP then:
"Police generally break open doors with a battering ram, or blow them off their hingeswith explosives. After an entryway is cleared, police sometimes detonate a flashbang grenade or a similar device designed to disorient the occupants in the targeted house. They then enter the home under its cover. SWAT teams have entered homes through fire escapes, by rappelling down from police helicopters, and by crashing through second-story windows. "
But that's drug raid procedure, not homeland security. Add a small fleet of police helicopters, probably surveillance drones, a mobile command centre, FBI sharpshooters stationed on any nearby building (or anywhere they can get a good line of sight), the bomb squad (possibility a military one to deal with the terrorist who blew up that building), and every department that wants to be in on the arrest. Since we are dealing with Chicago the Special Functions Group, the Targeted Response Unit, the Mobile Strike Force, and SWAT would be there. Call it 30 men from each of those units, plus roughly an extra hundred regular officers to provide backup and support services (directing traffic, keeping bystanders out of the way, etc), plus a squad from the FBI, a squad from homeland security, someone from ATF, and so on.
The TRU would move in first, surrounding the building, with the others in reserve. They'd treat it the way they would treat any high risk search warrant - with the exception of there being an FBI agent to "officially" knock. I.E. a member of the TRU (in body armour) would pound on the door while the agent called out "This is Special Agent Tilly of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have a warrant to search this property and detain its occupants for questioning regarding last night’s explosion. If you do not open this door, we will be forced to break it down."
Since the federal agents are in charge, they would probably wait 15 seconds before trying to break down the door - using the "15 seconds to open the door" rule as opposed to the "5 second to keep him from disposing of evidence" rule that is used in many drug searches.
Should a ward be in place, the first blast would take out the ones with the battering ram. Hearing that, the men at the windows would try to bash them in (to toss in flash bangs) and go down themselves (assuming that the windows are warded, because anyone who doesn't could have a pipe bomb tossed through the window on his day off and learn from that...).
With officers down, the other officers would begin opening fire on the house in an effort to provide covering fire. Regualarly armed officers would be using handguns, Remington 870s, Mossberg 500s, and semi-automatic AR-15s. SWAT would be using submachine guns (probably one of the following list: 9 mm and 10 mm Heckler & Koch MP5,Heckler & Koch UMP,[11] and 5.7x28mm FN P90), combat shotguns (Benelli M1, Benelli M4, Benelli M1014, Remington 870, and 1100, Mossberg 500 and 590), carbines (Colt CAR-15 and M4 and Heckler & Koch G36 and HK416), sniper rifles, and lobbing tear gas at the building. There would be ARVs (Armored Rescue Vehicles) on standby - and some police departments mount rams on these armoured vehicles, so seeing an Alvis Saracen modified with a ram wouldn't be out of the question.
That amount of gunfire has a tendency to put a lot of holes in walls. If the ward keeps the bullets from doing that then that would use up some of its power. Otherwise hiding in the bathtub is your best chance to stay alive as the bullets perforate the walls.
Three to five seconds later someone would call "cease fire" and maybe 3 - 5 seconds (or more) later everyone would finally stop firing - but would be ready to start again if spooked. The bodies of those hit by the wards would be retrieved, someone would get on a loud speaker calling for a surrender while the bomb's squad remote unit would try to clear to the door. Once pronounced "clean" (that is, no signs of bombs were found) the next wave would move in to plant explosives on the doors and window. If the wards trigger when they do that, they go down and there would be another mad minute of gunfire (wearing away the ward or putting bigger holes in the building). If not, the ward would have to handle shaped charges trying to blow holes in the building.
After than the building might be rammed by one of the ARVs (I see that as a real challenge to any ward) , a seize might happen, or extra forces from Homeland security might be called in to help level the building. Note that all the assets mentioned so far can be found in the hands of Chicago PD and as officers go down additional one will rush to the scene. I'm not saying that all 12,244 members of the Chicago PD will rush there, but a thousand or two? That could happen.
The average cop would use the cop template. For the police officers in special units I'd model them off of the SI template - giving them an aspect to tap and maybe one stunt with at least a Good weapon skill. Trained marksmen would be better than that, call it Great weapon skills to go with their weapon 3 - 4 guns.
With officers down, there's a very good chance that anyone who shows himself will die "resisting arrest" and it will be a "good shoot". Say that if the door opens without warning a couple of dozen officers will shoot the attacker coming at them - emptying their guns and maybe pausing to reload.
Now how does a PC easily beat that in combat? Or do they avoid combat (as suggested in the original post).
With that many people involved, any PC who's there when the raid happens is going to go quietly or in a blaze of glory.
Do they run, go underground, hide out, veil and watch the operation, use this as a distraction to hit another target, have sniper positioned to take out officer Rat Face (long standing NPC who's behind the raid), or do they do something else?
Personally I still think that we are talking plot device here. The raid is happening and if resisted it will be met with lethal force.
Richard
-
How does a PC easily beat that in combat?
I've already told you.
A properly constructed ward by a meaningfully competent wizard with a base block strength starting in the twenties will not be in the least bit fazed by 6-15 seconds of massed fire from small arms - you have to surpass that strength with your EFFORT, not including weapon rating, to reduce it, and those cops CAN'T unless the GM thoroughly abuses 'collective actions' - but all of those failed attacks, reflected by the ward, will do just fine to cut down the numbers of shooters, and that's before any landmines start to kick in - that is, if the wizard bothered to include any other than a 'in the case of a breach' nuke (I generally see simple increased base strength as more effective; let your attacker kill themselves).
The shaped charges that the cops bring in next are designed to take down barriers with strength, at most, in the high single digits, because that's what law enforcement deals with. They will similarly not so much as smudge your wards. Anyone stupid enough not to have cleared that blast radius isn't going to be helped by the armoured rescue vehicles.
When anyone gets uppity enough to ram an armoured vehicle into your wards, it will do about as much as ramming that vehicle into solid block of concrete wrapped in a foot of steel. ie. there might be a smudge of paint from that vehicle now defacing your lovely property.
Hurrah! The police are making progress!
Well, except for those poor sods who've been shot by their own guns, dismembered by their own explosives, thrown across the yard with impacted chest cavities (the first guy with the battering ram), or involved in a serious head-on collision (the armoured transport) quite easily sufficient to cause yet more serious injury.
At this point the immediate conflict has ended, probably in a drawn-out siege while the PC inhabitants work to secure their new main entrance/exit of their residence via the Nevernever (If they're really cocky, they'll make a point to be (briefly) sighted by law enforcement a few times in other parts of the city).
Either that, or law enforcement calls in tanks and/or an air strike, and the resultant next conflict actually starts to get interesting.
The lesson, here?
Regular law enforcement agencies have no context for the amount of force that they would need to bring to bear to take down a fortified competent Wizard.
-
How does a PC easily beat that in combat?
I've already told you.
So what you're saying is they don't fight the raid. Instead, they they run, go underground, hide out, veil and watch the operation, etc - which were some of the options listed in the initial message.
So where's the point that we disagree on?
Richard
-
So what you're saying is they don't fight the raid.
They've already fought the raid.
And won.
It does not pose a meaningful risk to their well-being.
It is as much a plot device as is a stretch of near-freezing river that runs through X City. If they wade naked into it, they will likely die of exposure, but they can continue about their plans essentially unhindered if they bother to take the bridge, or acquire a boat (traverse the Nevernever or enter/exit via careful use of veils, respectively).
Instead, they they run, go underground, hide out, veil and watch the operation, etc - which were some of the options listed in the initial message.
So where's the point that we disagree on?
The part where the operation poses a meaningful threat to the PCs, where it is any more a 'plot device' than is a potentially dangerous portion of scenery, the part where the PCs couldn't just sit back and read a book during the whole thing with impunity if they so chose.
The part where, during the ensuing hours-to-days-long siege, they couldn't cook up a ritual with relative ease that would scour the streets clean of their attackers, or mentally dominate them into utter subservience (ie. release a more potent version of a Mind Fog), etc., with no means by which the mortal law enforcement agents could meaningfully retaliate or interfere.
Or, for super-extra-fun if you're the evil sort of bugger that'd do that sort of thing, mentally dominate ONE of your attackers (or one at a time...), from the safety of your bay window to use 'I can clearly see my target' for your symbolic link, to open fire on his compatriots, turning the whole thing into a bloodbath.
How's that for fighting back?
-
How does a PC easily beat that in combat?
I've already told you.
A properly constructed ward by a meaningfully competent wizard with a base block strength starting in the twenties...
I don't believe most wards are physical barriers. Have I missed something?
Not saying you can't create a physical barrier, but you'd set it up per zone. Not going to be cheap. A standard ward will stop ghosts, spirits, unmanifested demons, and an individual's power - but it doesn't stop him from walking through the door. And for those which don't have physical barriers, destroying the ward's framework (i.e. the walls it's built on) will go a long ways towards taking the ward down.
-
Wards default reflect force (be magical or physical) which works as a physical barrier.
-
I don't believe most wards are physical barriers. Have I missed something?
Not saying you can't create a physical barrier, but you'd set it up per zone. Not going to be cheap. A standard ward will stop ghosts, spirits, unmanifested demons, and an individual's power - but it doesn't stop him from walking through the door. And for those which don't have physical barriers, destroying the ward's framework (i.e. the walls it's built on) will go a long ways towards taking the ward down.
Reread the section on Wards, starting on YS276.
Pay close attention to the top of the right-hand column on that page, and the first complete paragraph of the following page.
Wards do create barriers to physical passage, and do NOT have to pay separately for multiple zones.
You might be confusing Wards for the Thresholds upon which they are generally built.
-
Reread the section on Wards, starting on YS276.
Pay close attention to the top of the right-hand column on that page, and the first complete paragraph of the following page.
Wards do create barriers to physical passage, and do NOT have to pay separately for multiple zones.
You might be confusing Wards for the Thresholds upon which they are generally built.
Yep, think you're correct...I was applying threshold rules. :-[
-
They've already fought the raid.
And won.
They hide (one of the options listed) and the raid happened. They were not directly involved in the conflict.
In short:
The raid - it's a plot device. There's no way to stop it. There's no effective way to fight it. A small army of heavily armed, nervous people are going to show up and if the PCs try to fight then it's the battle of the Alamo or Butch Cassidy's last stand.
...
So the question is, how do the PCs react to the raid? Do they run, go underground, hide out, veil and watch the operation, use this as a distraction to hit another target, have sniper positioned to take out officer Rat Face (long standing NPC who's behind the raid), or do they do something else?
It does not pose a meaningful risk to their well-being.
Because they did not engage the raid in combat.
It is as much a plot device as is a stretch of near-freezing river that runs through X City. If they wade naked into it, they will likely die of exposure, but they can continue about their plans essentially unhindered if they bother to take the bridge, or acquire a boat (traverse the Nevernever or enter/exit via careful use of veils, respectively).
The river could very well be a plot device - the running water cutting off a spell or some force watching for them trying to use the bridge. Rivers have featured in many dramas as plot devices.
So we agree on this.
The part where the operation poses a meaningful threat to the PCs, where it is any more a 'plot device' than is a potentially dangerous portion of scenery, the part where the PCs couldn't just sit back and read a book during the whole thing with impunity if they so chose.
Yes, hiding is an option. You want them to hide behind a ward. Great. Just like if they veiled (another option listed).
So why did you need to know the stats for each and every cop to do that? The raid happens - it's a plot device. You can't stop the raid from happening but you have options on how to deal with the results.
The part where, during the ensuing hours-to-days-long siege, they couldn't cook up a ritual with relative ease that would scour the streets clean of their attackers, or mentally dominate them into utter subservience (ie. release a more potent version of a Mind Fog), etc., with no means by which the mortal law enforcement agents could meaningfully retaliate or interfere.
So your wards can stop the National Guard's tanks? Stop the attack helicopters? And no one from the White Council will see the blood bath on the news and send a warden to take down those wards. And none of the PCs' supernatural enemies will take advantage of a seize to attack the wards.
Or, for super-extra-fun if you're the evil sort of bugger that'd do that sort of thing, mentally dominate ONE of your attackers (or one at a time...), from the safety of your bay window to use 'I can clearly see my target' for your symbolic link, to open fire on his compatriots, turning the whole thing into a bloodbath.
How's that for fighting back?
That's a great bunch of warlocks you have there. Killing hundreds with magic, mind raping dozens of cops. Most people don't play PCs that are evil warlocks, but if that's your preferred style of play then that's your preferred style of play.
Me, I think that when the police see that your windows won't break that they'll call for help. Gunships shooting thousands of rounds per second - those should wear down your ward. Add in a few missiles and you'll encounter one of the major themes of the Dresden Files. The reason why supernaturals don't try to rule openly.
Mankind out numbers supernaturals and mankind has all sorts of nice "I kill you toys". Which is why involving the mortal authorities in supernatural politics is called going nuclear. When a conflict goes nuclear there are no winners.
And before you say "But that will take time" I'll point out that yes, it would take time in our world, but in the DV there are people like SI. People in authority who know about supernatural things. The reaction time to "supernaturals gone wild" would be faster than our world "he's a terrorist". Not that they're slow to send the hellfire drones after terrorists...
Earlier someone on this thread someone (possibly you) asked about what would happen if the Loup-Garou went on a rampage, killing those hundreds of cops. If that happened, the Loup-Garou would die - if it was lucky.
Oh, it wouldn't be easier. Yes, bullets would bounce off it - but the concussive force from grenades would knock it around, slowing it down and disrupting its attacks. And the steady stream of bullets from a minigun would probably force it back (a bit like a water cannon). There might not be a lot of heavy weapons used the first night the Loup-Garou rampaged, but by the second or third night there would be troops there to pour on the firepower.
Then, sometime around dawn (or moon set - whichever) the Loup-Garou would become human and die from concussive force, shrapnel, or minigun fire - if he was lucky.
If he wasn't lucky the Loup-Garou would be lured / herded into a pit (they might have to experiment on how deep to make it) and when it changed back the man would be looking at dissection (maybe vivisection) or a lifetime of being an experimental animal. If Marcone could come up with a plan involving a pit then others could come up with one that worked.
Either way, it would be modern man triumphing over an ancient terror. Which is why (in the Dresden Files) the ancient terrors act behind the scenes. They can't take mankind on and they know it.
Richard
-
They hide (one of the options listed) and the raid happened. They were not directly involved in the conflict.
That's a bit like saying they can't fight a pointy stick because they didn't impale themselves in the eye with it. A well built wizard ward will do just fine against the small arms fire cops can put out.
In short:
Because they did not engage the raid in combat.
They can fire through the window if they want as well. Its like saying since
Yes, hiding is an option. You want them to hide behind a ward. Great. Just like if they veiled (another option listed).
They can engage it in combat if they feel like. Just open the door and open fire. Their still behind a threshold, the ward is still up. The only reason they aren't engaging in combat is because it isn't a meaningful threat.
So your wards can stop the National Guard's tanks? Stop the attack helicopters? And no one from the White Council will see the blood bath on the news and send a warden to take down those wards. And none of the PCs' supernatural enemies will take advantage of a seize to attack the wards.
The helicopters, and tanks will require proactive hexing. But
That's a great bunch of warlocks you have there. Killing hundreds with magic, mind raping dozens of cops. Most people don't play PCs that are evil warlocks, but if that's your preferred style of play then that's your preferred style of play.
The mind raping is warlock territory. However letting cops impale themselves with their own force is not. Indeed in Blood Rites Dresden said that reflecting spells is one of White Councils favorite tricks. They get whatever they were trying to do to you, be it a killing spell or a wonderful blessing of goodness. And its fine to do so for lethal force; indeed Harry was trying too.
Me, I think that when the police see that your windows won't break that they'll call for help. Gunships shooting thousands of rounds per second - those should wear down your ward. Add in a few missiles and you'll encounter one of the major themes of the Dresden Files. The reason why supernaturals don't try to rule openly.
Military: Okay let me get this straight, he has magical windows that attacking causes the shots to be reflected upon the attacker? And you want us to open fire in the middle of a city when shots bounce back? I'm going out on a limb here that you guys had a bad batch of doughnuts. Regardless we aren't opening fire into a city. Even if they do opeen fire, instead of offering you a job at Area 51, the wizard should be long gone by then.
And before you say "But that will take time" I'll point out that yes, it would take time in our world, but in the DV there are people like SI. People in authority who know about supernatural things. The reaction time to "supernaturals gone wild" would be faster than our world "he's a terrorist". Not that they're slow to send the hellfire drones after terrorists...
And when SI, asks for hellfire missiles in the middle of a city? Yeah, right.
But you want to know the real reason why cops can't take a wizard? The wizard can open the door, wave a gun around, watch cops shoot themselves close the door, portal out to the Nevernever, walk into a police station half way across the country and ask why they are shooting at his house. Then the extremely easy to win court case will go a bit like this:
State: We have proof he killed cops.
Defense: It was their own bullets.
State: He had this reflector field thingy.
Defense: Of course he did.
State: We have it on tape!
Defense: So you put special effects on a tape. I would be impressed if I never watched T.V.
State: He's a witch!
Defense: ... So we'll settle for you giving us a million bucks.
State: Fine.
-
That's a bit like saying they can't fight a pointy stick because they didn't impale themselves in the eye with it. A well built wizard ward will do just fine against the small arms fire cops can put out.They can fire through the window if they want as well.
When it comes to the Chicago PD "small arms fire" includes combat shotguns, semi auto AR15s, and submachine guns. How many hundreds of bullets do you feel the average ward can handle in the run of a minute?
The helicopters, and tanks will require proactive hexing. But The mind raping is warlock territory. However letting cops impale themselves with their own force is not. Indeed in Blood Rites Dresden said that reflecting spells is one of White Councils favorite tricks. They get whatever they were trying to do to you, be it a killing spell or a wonderful blessing of goodness. And its fine to do so for lethal force; indeed Harry was trying too.
The mind raping wasn't my idea - but dead cops tend to bring harsh responses.
Military: Okay let me get this straight, he has magical windows that attacking causes the shots to be reflected upon the attacker? And you want us to open fire in the middle of a city when shots bounce back? I'm going out on a limb here that you guys had a bad batch of doughnuts. Regardless we aren't opening fire into a city. Even if they do opeen fire, instead of offering you a job at Area 51, the wizard should be long gone by then
That's like saying "What? You say that planes are flying into skyscrapers? I'm going out on a limb here that you guys had a bad batch of doughnuts. Regardless we aren't opening fire on civilian planes".
Stating:
"We have hundreds dead at the hands of an unknown terrorist cell that is using custom IEDs (easiest way to interpret the wards exploding) and we need backup. They even seem to have some experimental ceramics that are transparent but can bounce rounds from a combat shotgun. Hurry!"
- realistically, saying that would get a military response. I'm basing that off of who shows up within an hour when car bomb gets spotted.
But you want to know the real reason why cops can't take a wizard? The wizard can open the door, wave a gun around, watch cops shoot themselves close the door, portal out to the Nevernever, walk into a police station half way across the country and ask why they are shooting at his house. Then the extremely easy to win court case will go a bit like this:
State: We have proof he killed cops.
Defense: It was their own bullets.
State: He had this reflector field thingy.
Defense: Of course he did.
State: We have it on tape!
Defense: So you put special effects on a tape. I would be impressed if I never watched T.V.
State: He's a witch!
Defense: ... So we'll settle for you giving us a million bucks.
State: Fine.
No, it won't. You're assuming that police are neutral when it comes to facts involving the deaths of brother officers. When the cops that witnessed him being there report his involvement the wizard will be held in custody as the investigation unfolds. Accused cop killer almost never make bail, no matter how much proof they offer that it wasn't them.
If they have video of Dave the Wizard being involved in a cop killing incident, he's not going to get out of jail until he explains his involvement to their satisfaction. Sure, there's that bit about 'innocent until proven guilty", but wrongly accused people often spend a year or more in jail awaiting trial or any sort of hearing that can prove their innocence.
You might want to watch a video like this one (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865), which talks about the procedures used against the average suspect. Accused cop killers, they often get special treatment.
There's a reason that bringing in the mortals authorities is called "going nuclear" in the supernatural world in the DV. If the mortals decide to hunt supernaturals then supernaturals will die. So will a lot of normal mortals, some of them of the hands of other mortals, but supernatural lack the number and firepower to take on the mortals.
That's why, even at the height of their power, the RCVs used pawns to run things as opposed to going public - even in countries that they dominated. That's why the Fomor are working behind the scenes. That's why the WCVs don't go on TV with offers "Want a great sex experience that will blow your mind? Call 1-800-Incubus today!". There's just too many mortals with too many tools to stand against the mortal population.
Richard
-
When it comes to the Chicago PD "small arms fire" includes combat shotguns, semi auto AR15s, and submachine guns. How many hundreds of bullets do you feel the average ward can handle in the run of a minute?
By game rules? Forever. By the book, Harry's wards have enough juice for countless zombies or lethal entropy curses; in other words, long enough for the cops to stop shooting at it. A heavy duty ward is good.
"We have hundreds dead at the hands of an unknown terrorist cell that is using custom IEDs (easiest way to interpret the wards exploding) and we need backup. They even seem to have some experimental ceramics that are transparent but can bounce rounds from a combat shotgun. Hurry!"
- realistically, saying that would get a military response. I'm basing that off of who shows up within an hour when car bomb gets spotted.
They probably haven't even gotten to the landmines. I would put those last in case of breach. Your going to call the military and tell them that a guy has an unbreakable house and you managed to hurt yourself on it. They might come help, but they really won't want to risk civilians over your stupidity.
No, it won't. You're assuming that police are neutral when it comes to facts involving the deaths of brother officers. When the cops that witnessed him being there report his involvement the wizard will be held in custody as the investigation unfolds. Accused cop killer almost never make bail, no matter how much proof they offer that it wasn't them.
If they have video of Dave the Wizard being involved in a cop killing incident, he's not going to get out of jail until he explains his involvement to their satisfaction. Sure, there's that bit about 'innocent until proven guilty", but wrongly accused people often spend a year or more in jail awaiting trial or any sort of hearing that can prove their innocence.
If the cops aren't neutral, Dave can be dirty too. Dave is fully capable of making look-a-like doppelgangers of himself and cops. Wander out of prison, replace a few cops (the cops get a free vacation to Nevernever land) and have them go on about the big conspiracy. Also this isn't just proof. This is proof so absolute the cops need to claim Dave has a teleporter. Also making a really strong wall isn't a crime, even if someone shoots a gun and has it bounce back in their face.
You might want to watch a video like this one (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865), which talks about the procedures used against the average suspect. Accused cop killers, they often get special treatment.
The defense does the talking. The wizard just hexes everything in sight.
-
If the cops aren't neutral, Dave can be dirty too. Dave is fully capable of making look-a-like doppelgangers of himself and cops. Wander out of prison, replace a few cops (the cops get a free vacation to Nevernever land) and have them go on about the big conspiracy. Also this isn't just proof. This is proof so absolute the cops need to claim Dave has a teleporter.
It seems as if you are assuming that this hoax evidence of Dave being out of prison would be admitted in a court of law. That the legal system runs objectively on evidence.
There are wrongly convicted people currently sitting in jail because evidence laws prevent courts from looking the facts that prove that they are innocent. A simple search reveals countless sites like http://act4innocence.com/2012/03/10/act-to-support-sb-1153-because-innocence-must-never-be-time-barred/ (http://act4innocence.com/2012/03/10/act-to-support-sb-1153-because-innocence-must-never-be-time-barred/) which points out that if you are even one day late filing a legal paper then the evidence will never be looked at. On a wider scale, Project Innocence lists hundreds of cases where evidence was ignored or ruled inadmissible, resulting in people spending decades in prison for crimes they didn't commit.
Also making a really strong wall isn't a crime, even if someone shoots a gun and has it bounce back in their face. The defense does the talking. The wizard just hexes everything in sight.
If you innocently set up something (say a prank on your brother) that results in someone dying, odds are you will do prison time. Set up a trap that gets a law enforcement agent killed and you are looking at murder. For example, if you live where there are bears and you set up a bear trap to keep bears off your property and if it kills a cop serving a law enforcement officer serving a search warrant, that's murder in the first degree. And if you claim that someone else set that bear trap on your property, that's just you lying to get off the charge.
When it come to the trial, the DA doesn't need to prove how you did it - the fact that a cop died speaks for itself. You had to have rigged something for the bullets to ricochet that way. Nor does he really need to prove that you did it - he just has to prove that you had the opportunity to set a trap and that a cop died of as a result.
And very weak cases go to trial. For example, in the Casey Anthony case, the DA basically said: "We don't know how the victim died. We can't prove that the victim was killed. We don't have any proof about the cause of death - but we want you to convict that woman for murder.". It sounds like a weak case (and it was - not saying if I think the accused did it, just that the case was weak) but strong enough to keep her in jail for two and a half years in jail awaiting trial.
Two and a half years. Thirty months before she got her day (well, six weeks) in court. That's sort of wait isn't uncommon in a murder case.
And if it looks like a cop killer is going to get off on a technicality, that cop killer could end up dead in a prison fight, shot while escaping, or otherwise murdered by (or at the behest) of law enforcement personnel. Nope, it's not supposed to happen, but it does.
Richard
-
It seems as if you are assuming that this hoax evidence of Dave being out of prison would be admitted in a court of law. That the legal system runs objectively on evidence.
You mean cops testifying? Because I'm pretty sure that can be admitted to a court of law. As far as the non-clued in people know that's exactly what it is.
If you innocently set up something (say a prank on your brother) that results in someone dying, odds are you will do prison time. Set up a trap that gets a law enforcement agent killed and you are looking at murder. For example, if you live where there are bears and you set up a bear trap to keep bears off your property and if it kills a cop serving a law enforcement officer serving a search warrant, that's murder in the first degree. And if you claim that someone else set that bear trap on your property, that's just you lying to get off the charge.
Every single wall ever can cause bullets to ricochet off of it. There is no trap. More to the point, when people who weren't there try to figure out what happened the physical evidence will point to the cops. The house is normal; it can't survive that level of gun fire. You want to know what it looks like? A suicide pact. The cops appear to have killed themselves with their own weapons, and made up an idiotic story.
When it come to the trial, the DA doesn't need to prove how you did it - the fact that a cop died speaks for itself. You had to have rigged something for the bullets to ricochet that way. Nor does he really need to prove that you did it - he just has to prove that you had the opportunity to set a trap and that a cop died of as a result.
And very weak cases go to trial. For example, in the Casey Anthony case, the DA basically said: "We don't know how the victim died. We can't prove that the victim was killed. We don't have any proof about the cause of death - but we want you to convict that woman for murder.". It sounds like a weak case (and it was - not saying if I think the accused did it, just that the case was weak) but strong enough to keep her in jail for two and a half years in jail awaiting trial.
Two and a half years. Thirty months before she got her day (well, six weeks) in court. That's sort of wait isn't uncommon in a murder case.
And if it looks like a cop killer is going to get off on a technicality, that cop killer could end up dead in a prison fight, shot while escaping, or otherwise murdered by (or at the behest) of law enforcement personnel. Nope, it's not supposed to happen, but it does.
You mean his doppelganger could end up dead. The wizard kills a couple of the cops responsible, and has look-a-like constructs report it to the FBI. And the news. Congrats now on the 8'o clock news reads: "cops attempt murder as part of satanic ritual." The wizard probably replaces his doppelganger at some point.
Of course, this is all for an good wizard. An evil one replaces the judge, some FBI bigwig and DA, and has the charges dismissed immediately. Oh and he has the judge put out arrest warrants for the drugs the wizard planted in every cops home, and has the FBI bigwig order the raids.
-
Somehow I missed the part where the wizard escaped from jail.
And where he transformed himself so he wouldn't traced under the 'armed and extremely dangerous" bulletin - the sort of want that can someone shot because he kind of looks like the guy they're looking for.
If you want wizards to be supermen in your game, that's fine. That's not how they are in the DV, where the White Council ensures they don't mettle too much with mortal governments. Where the supernaturals fear that the next inquisition could happen - one where everyone accepts whatever the government says they have to do in order to keep the nation safe from the monsters.
Dresden, a wizard, has spent time in lock up. He hasn't been able to do any of the things you suggest - possibly he isn't capable of doing it or possibly his moral code won't let him. Which is why Rudolf's still walking around.
Richard
-
Somehow I missed the part where the wizard escaped from jail.
He's a wizard, he can turn into a cloud of gas and slip through the wall, or portal out in the Nevernever. Or pull a Binder and kill his way out.
And where he transformed himself so he wouldn't traced under the 'armed and extremely dangerous" bulletin - the sort of want that can someone shot because he kind of looks like the guy they're looking for.
If he had to escape from jail and leave a doppelganger behind they don't know he's gone.
If you want wizards to be supermen in your game, that's fine. That's not how they are in the DV, where the White Council ensures they don't mettle too much with mortal governments. Where the supernaturals fear that the next inquisition could happen - one where everyone accepts whatever the government says they have to do in order to keep the nation safe from the monsters.
Dresden, a wizard, has spent time in lock up. He hasn't been able to do any of the things you suggest - possibly he isn't capable of doing it or possibly his moral code won't let him. Which is why Rudolf's still walking around.
Binder was just going to kill his way out of jail if he wasn't set free. Not only that he expected Dresden to know exactly what would happen. And I don't recall Dresden ever being in jail for more than a day.
-
An alternate point of view: any wizard who did the sorts of things described above (mind-controlling cops, replacing them with duplicates, committing mass-murder via wards, deliberately hexing helicopters in flight. etc) would become White Council Enemy #1 so fast that he wouldn't be able to say "Oops" before his entire body was diced into bite-sized chunks, let alone his head lopped off.
State: We have proof he killed cops.
Defense: It was their own bullets.
State: He had this reflector field thingy.
Defense: Of course he did.
State: We have it on tape!
Defense: So you put special effects on a tape. I would be impressed if I never watched T.V.
State: He's a witch!
Defense: ... So we'll settle for you giving us a million bucks.
State: Fine.
[Several bearded men wearing clothes "that are soo last century" nod to each other and make their way out of the courtroom from their seats in the back. The defendant is realeased from police custody, but is never heard from again. The settlement check, having never been endorsed, reverts back to the State.]
-
An alternate point of view: any wizard who did the sorts of things described above (mind-controlling cops, replacing them with duplicates, committing mass-murder via wards, deliberately hexing helicopters in flight. etc) would become White Council Enemy #1 so fast that he wouldn't be able to say "Oops" before his entire body was diced into bite-sized chunks, let alone his head lopped off.
Mind Controlling and the Hexing in flight copters would get his head chopped off. Reflecting attacks is a standard White Council trick. Remember Harry was planning on doing this with a lethal spell. And killing people is a-okay with the White Council as long as you don't break the first law. Recall how Binder was going to call up his boys and kill his way out of jail? I suppose the Council might get pissed, but they haven't stopped Binder.
-
Mind Controlling and the Hexing in flight copters would get his head chopped off. Reflecting attacks is a standard White Council trick. Remember Harry was planning on doing this with a lethal spell. And killing people is a-okay with the White Council as long as you don't break the first law. Recall how Binder was going to call up his boys and kill his way out of jail? I suppose the Council might get pissed, but they haven't stopped Binder.
Reflecting other people's spells is standard, at which point it's said other person's spell and magic doing the deed. Reflecting non spell attacks (bullets) means the last spell involved was yours and likely falls under the 'throwing people into traffic' or 'dropping large objects on people' clauses.
-
Reflecting other people's spells is standard, at which point it's said other person's spell and magic doing the deed. Reflecting non spell attacks (bullets) means the last spell involved was yours and likely falls under the 'throwing people into traffic' or 'dropping large objects on people' clauses.
I disagree with this conclusion.
I don't feel that reflecting spells should be treated specially when the result is death.
The last CHOICE involved was on the part of the shooter, which I think is incredibly important, particularly when dealing with indirect killings.
-
If you cast a spell on the doorway of a shopping mall that is designed to explode if anyone opens it, then you should get a Lawbreaker, even if the proximate cause was the shopper choosing to walk through your booby-trapped door.
Similarly, the ward described was specifically designed to kill people, and was activated with the expectation that mortals would be triggering it in the near future.
You might be able to convince a Warden it was a accident/misunderstanding/whatever. Maybe. But the (metaphysical) Laws of Magic can be lawyered on technicalities. If you are the sort of wizard who would put into place a lethal ward knowing full well that it would be triggered by mortals with lethal consequences, then enjoy your Lawbreaker and new and improved aspect reflecting your shifting attitudes toward cavalier use of lethal magic.
-
If you place a ward on that door to resist all attempts to open it, and to return whatever force is applied to it back upon those applying it, and to explode with deadly force of its own only if it is breached, which far more accurately describes the wards that have been discussed in this thread, then you should get a Lawbreaker if a mortal is killed by that landmine, but NOT if they are killed by their own bullets bouncing back at them from the effect of the ward itself.
-
Ignore landmines, then. I place a powerful ward across an Autobahn in Germany. A carrying a (mortal) family runs into it and goes from 150kph to -150kph (averaged over all fragments produced) in an instant, with predictable results.
No Lawbreaker, because the driver is responsible?
-
I'm pretty sure you can't put a ward across the autobahn without some houserules.
-
You can anchor a ward to things other than a threshold. It just takes more work. Generally you have to carve things (out of wood or stone) to function as the anchor points.
YS Page 277 talks about them covering intersections.
Richard
-
The key here is intent. If someone places a ward across the Autobahn, they're knowingly doing something which will likely bring death upon some innocent driver. If someone places a ward on their own front door (just like Harry did) then they're clearly trying to stop people from getting in. The only way the second action will result in someone dying is if they direct sufficient force against the ward to kill anyone who had been on the other side of the door anyway. The RAW states that intent should generally be the biggest factor in determining when a Lawbreaker stunt should be given out and then cites the example of Harry's massive fire spell in Grave Peril that he may have unknowingly used to kill humans.
That being said, Harry seemed to feel it prudent to deactivate his wards and slip away when he knew mortal cops were about to try to bang his door down. Whether he did this to avoid breaking the First Law (which I doubt) or because he has friends who are cops and didn't want them to needlessly die (which I suspect) is another matter.
-
That being said, Harry seemed to feel it prudent to deactivate his wards and slip away when he knew mortal cops were about to try to bang his door down. Whether he did this to avoid breaking the First Law (which I doubt) or because he has friends who are cops and didn't want them to needlessly die (which I suspect) is another matter.
Harry's ward doesn't just reflect the force that others use - it is loaded with landmines to blow the hell out of an attacking army. When the FBI tried to enter, the stored energy in Harry's ward would have started killing them.
In short, Harry set up a lethal spell and defined the conditions that would cause it to go off. Once he realised that it was going to kill mudanes his choice was to remove it or break a law of magic.
Richard
-
Mortals' Death-by-Landmines is likely what prompted Harry to hastily tear down his own wards.
Unfortunately, Death-by-Landmines is NOT what we're talking about on this thread.
-
Mortals' Death-by-Landmines is likely what prompted Harry to hastily tear down his own wards.
Unfortunately, Death-by-Landmines is NOT what we're talking about on this thread.
We aren't?
Because I was replying to:
That being said, Harry seemed to feel it prudent to deactivate his wards and slip away when he knew mortal cops were about to try to bang his door down. Whether he did this to avoid breaking the First Law (which I doubt) or because he has friends who are cops and didn't want them to needlessly die (which I suspect) is another matter.
Maybe I should have quoted the above - to make it more obvious - but since my post was directly below it I assumed that others would see the relevance.
Richard
-
And my reply was just as applicable to Rougarou's comment as it was to yours.
The deaths involving wards that have been vastly predominantly discussed on this thread have not been due to landmines, but rather to the reflection of applied force.
Harry's disassembling of his wards to spare the lives of the officers about to break down his door is not meaningfully applicable to a discussion of whether or not wards that inflict death by means other than landmines should/would violate the First Law, because his wards would be likely to do so by means of landmines, which is explicitly NOT the means that would result from those wards at issue in this thread.
No one is contesting that killing by means of landmines should violate the First Law.
-
And my reply was just as applicable to Rougarou's comment as it was to yours.
The deaths involving wards that have been vastly predominantly discussed on this thread have not been due to landmines, but rather to the reflection of applied force.
Then perhaps it's time to split the thread so that we can separate it from comments like:
The ability of wizards to kill hundreds with a single spell really isn't in question. It happens in the novels, and the mechanics support it.
and
Harry CHOSE to let those cops break down his door. All he had to do to stop them was NOT take down his wards. That's not 'plot device', that's just pure, simple, common Compel.
But you could say, 'I'm entirely willing to let those cops throw themselves into the meat grinder of my wards, please do continue' and then sit back and watch the fireworks.
Which did refer to landmines grinding a cop army to death are no longer part of this thread.
No one is contesting that killing by means of landmines should violate the First Law.
Actually, Rougarou was. Hence the discussion. But it's good that we agree that landmines killing mortals = lawbreaker.
Regardless, if a wizard sets up a situation where magical power is very likely to bring about the death of a mortal, then I can see a case being made for lawbreaker to apply. Of course there's a more in depth discussion on that in the stickies at the top of this forum.
Richard