ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: zerogain on June 28, 2012, 07:38:02 PM
-
Here's the situation:
My player, a shapeshifted scion of the Amerind deity Raven, is in mortal combat with an NPC wizard. The wizard is on her last legs, realizes she is going to die (the scion was compelled that she didn't know her own strength, the power is new to her), and she casts her death curse. The wizard peers into the scions eyes, initiates a soulgaze, and then funnels herself through the link in an attempt to stuff her own soul into the scion's body. She doesn't have enough power to fully take out the scion, who can go all the way through with an extreme consequence and survive.
So, how would you model this? Right now I'm leaning toward the extreme consequence being an enforced aspect (in particular the player came up with "One Death Curse and She Thinks She's Tricia Helfer" (No. 6 from BSG if you don't get the reference)) and have the wizard partially inhabiting the scion's body, but I gather from reading other posts here in death curse threads that the wizard could make this a spell instead.
For right now I'm interested in gathering opinion, but if you have a specific numerical "how this crap works" to throw at me, go ahead.
-
Sounds like necromancy to me, but that could still be a death curse I suppose. Can you do a Necromancy (death energy) with a Death Curse (last drops of Life energy)?
Assuming you dont want to go full Voice-in-her-Head Possession and keep the NPC as an active Character that way, The enforced Aspect seems a smooth way to go.
-
Keep in mind, a death-curse is a human-sacrifice powered spell (+20 auto-controlled spell-power). If, using this +20 to her normal magic, the NPC wizard is unable to take-out an already wounded enemy, she's doing it wrong. Her preferred taken-out result? Sharing a body.
-
Keep in mind, a death-curse is a human-sacrifice powered spell (+20 auto-controlled spell-power). If, using this +20 to her normal magic, the NPC wizard is unable to take-out an already wounded enemy, she's doing it wrong. Her preferred taken-out result? Sharing a body.
Alright, as I understand it, you can only use consequences that have yet to be spent to power the spell. The wizard had already taken a few consequences (two Minors were already used), and had her Extreme (8), Severe (6), and Moderate (4) to pull from. I calculated a Spell Power of 18, and slammed that 18 onto the player as direct psychic damage.
Having no room to gather power with maneuvers, how else should she have gathered her power?
-
Alright, as I understand it, you can only use consequences that have yet to be spent to power the spell. The wizard had already taken a few consequences (two Minors were already used), and had her Extreme (8), Severe (6), and Moderate (4) to pull from. I calculated a Spell Power of 18, and slammed that 18 onto the player as direct psychic damage.
Having no room to gather power with maneuvers, how else should she have gathered her power?
Y'know, you might be right-- I haven't ever used the rules for Death Curses. I'll review them tonight. I just assumed it was considered a human-sacrifice spell (with yourself as the sacrifice).
I'll get back to you.
Does anyone else remember?
-
Alright, as I understand it, you can only use consequences that have yet to be spent to power the spell. The wizard had already taken a few consequences (two Minors were already used), and had her Extreme (8), Severe (6), and Moderate (4) to pull from. I calculated a Spell Power of 18, and slammed that 18 onto the player as direct psychic damage.
Having no room to gather power with maneuvers, how else should she have gathered her power?
You can add whatever normal power you could call up as well, up to your Conviction+3, if those stress boxes are still open.
-
Y'know, you might be right-- I haven't ever used the rules for Death Curses. I'll review them tonight. I just assumed it was considered a human-sacrifice spell (with yourself as the sacrifice).
I'll get back to you.
Does anyone else remember?
The sidebar on Death Curses says:
all of the consequences he has can be tagged, and he can inflict more upon himself if he’s got the space, since he’s not going to be around afterward.
Sounds like +20 to me.
-
It's less than +20 if anything larger than a Mild Consequence has already been filled, because you get a tag on those consequences, rather than their full value.
-
The sidebar on Death Curses says:Sounds like +20 to me.
Key word: Tagged.
A Severe Consequence tagged for +2 is not the same as a Severe Consequence inflicted for +6.
-
Yup, I was wrong. So I guess that would actually make the potential range from 8-28 (more if the character had extra consequences).
-
I was under the impression that you could only tag an aspect that you had discovered, created, or that an ally who had done so was permitting you to use their tag.
If consequences had been inflicted by enemies, how could my wizardess tag those consequences? What am I missing?
-
The ability to tag all the character's existing consequences is granted by the explicit wording of the Death Curse rules.
-
A consequence is an aspect on your character sheet that anyone (including the sufferer) can invoke, when appropriate. It carries a free tag that is controlled by the character that caused it, which is what you're referring to.
Death Curses have a special feature that let grant the player a "bonus" free tag on all consequences (and allow you to mark of any unused consequences and tag them, too). See the sidebar I quoted above (Death Curses, YS282) for the details.
Actually, though, another way to look at this is that it isn't actually a special free tag, but a combination of several existing features:
1) The consequences are aspects and can be invoked normally (ie, by spending a Fate point)
2) When you are taken out, you you get a Fate point for each consequence taken, as though accepting a compel by those consequences -- which is in effect what you are doing (YS206)
3) A Death Curse is a function of being taken out
So a way of looking at it might be that you are being taken out, so you get Fate points for those consequences, which you then use to invoke the consequence aspects for a bonus for your Death Curse. All of this occurs in the instant of you being taken out.
-
A consequence is an aspect on your character sheet that anyone (including the sufferer) can invoke, when appropriate. It carries a free tag that is controlled by the character that caused it, which is what you're referring to.
Death Curses have a special feature that let grant the player a "bonus" free tag on all consequences (and allow you to mark of any unused consequences and tag them, too). See the sidebar I quoted above (Death Curses, YS282) for the details.
Actually, though, another way to look at this is that it isn't actually a special free tag, but a combination of several existing features:
1) The consequences are aspects and can be invoked normally (ie, by spending a Fate point)
2) When you are taken out, you you get a Fate point for each consequence taken, as though accepting a compel by those consequences -- which is in effect what you are doing (YS206)
3) A Death Curse is a function of being taken out
So a way of looking at it might be that you are being taken out, so you get Fate points for those consequences, which you then use to invoke the consequence aspects for a bonus for your Death Curse. All of this occurs in the instant of you being taken out.
You mean concession, not take out, right?
-
A Concession is explicitly a special form of being Taken Out.
-
Alright then, lets do the math. I'm assuming a great conviction, if it's different you can adjust. So, four shifts to start (and only four shifts unless she's got blank stress boxes, otherwise things can get a bit murky) plus tags on two mild consequences for four more, plus eighteen for inflicting more consequences, and six more for tagging them.
I'd think it wouldn't be too hard to take someone out and change their aspects with thirty-two shifts of power. ;D
Also any fate points she has can invoke her aspects (I imagine she has at least a couple related to spellcasting) or barring that just give a flat +1.
-
Alright then, lets do the math. I'm assuming a great conviction, if it's different you can adjust. So, four shifts to start (and only four shifts unless she's got blank stress boxes, otherwise things can get a bit murky) plus tags on two mild consequences for four more, plus eighteen for inflicting more consequences, and six more for tagging them.
I'd think it wouldn't be too hard to take someone out and change their aspects with thirty-two shifts of power. ;D
Also any fate points she has can invoke her aspects (I imagine she has at least a couple related to spellcasting) or barring that just give a flat +1.
There's a reason it is dangerous to kill a wizard! ???
-
A Concession is explicitly a special form of being Taken Out.
Right-- but it's one where you decide the outcome. If you get taken out without a concession, you don't get a say in how it happens; your attacker does. I.e: No death curse.
-
Right-- but it's one where you decide the outcome. If you get taken out without a concession, you don't get a say in how it happens; your attacker does. I.e: No death curse.
Not necessarily. I've had more than one opportunity to throw a death curse at someone because the player killed his opponent in a non-instant manner. A gunshot through the chest is as lethal as one to the head, but still gives a chance for a Death Curse.
-
Right-- but it's one where you decide the outcome. If you get taken out without a concession, you don't get a say in how it happens; your attacker does. I.e: No death curse.
Nope. Reread pg 203. You'll still get a death curse.
Oh and the power of a death curse is: Lore+8(tags on consequences)+20(sacrificing a life)+unused consequences+fate points to invoke (don't forget the cash out bonus!)+2 per extra consequence. Pro-tip: Avoid these at all cost. Even if you kill a focused practitioner on her last legs you're probably eating 30 shifts of power. If the victim started healthy or has spare fate points more. God help you if you hit them hard enough to kill them when they had consequences left.
-
As we mentioned before, the +20 is from inflicting all the consequences. If they're already inflicted, their shifts can't be counted toward the spell.
-
Not necessarily. I've had more than one opportunity to throw a death curse at someone because the player killed his opponent in a non-instant manner. A gunshot through the chest is as lethal as one to the head, but still gives a chance for a Death Curse.
Well, that's not how I would handle it-- by rules on take-outs, unless the player doing the taking-out wanted to allow your death curse, they can narrate that they killed you too soon for you to utter it.
The dying-slowly-enough circumstance arises from the practitioner conceding, allowing him/her to narrate that it is so.
Nope. Reread pg 203. You'll still get a death curse.
I'll reread it tonight, but I'm fairly certain you're mistaken.
-
Well, that's not how I would handle it-- by rules on take-outs, unless the player doing the taking-out wanted to allow your death curse, they can narrate that they killed you too soon for you to utter it.
The dying-slowly-enough circumstance arises from the practitioner conceding, allowing him/her to narrate that it is so.
I'll reread it tonight, but I'm fairly certain you're mistaken.
You're forgetting half of the Taken Out rule. Yes, the attacker decides what happens. But the victim decides exactly how. That's explicit in the RAW. The page referred to highlights this and is a conversation amounting to, "So does that mean wizards always get their death curse?" "More or less, yeah."
-
You're forgetting half of the Taken Out rule. Yes, the attacker decides what happens. But the victim decides exactly how. That's explicit in the RAW. The page referred to highlights this and is a conversation amounting to, "So does that mean wizards always get their death curse?" "More or less, yeah."
Ah, you're right! I remember that passage, now.
Damn, that's ridiculous! It didn't strike me just how ridiculous before, when Dresden was the only FATE game I knew. I haven't read the rules stright through since I grabbed a bunch of the other ones.
-
As we mentioned before, the +20 is from inflicting all the consequences. If they're already inflicted, their shifts can't be counted toward the spell.
You're killing a mortal to power the spell. Instant +20 complexity. That's in addition to the +20 you can sneetch for consequences. If you decide to death curse when your still healthy for whatever reason, its 20(life)+20(consequences)+8(tags)+4 to 8(fate points)+lore+extra stuff. 52 minimum. Who ever gets hit by that better have plot device written all over them. Or a bucket load of fate points.
-
You're killing a mortal to power the spell. Instant +20 complexity. That's in addition to the +20 you can sneetch for consequences. If you decide to death curse when your still healthy for whatever reason, its 20(life)+20(consequences)+8(tags)+4 to 8(fate points)+lore+extra stuff. 52 minimum. Who ever gets hit by that better have plot device written all over them. Or a bucket load of fate points.
Death curses have specific rules and there is nothing about yourself being a sacrifice at least in the way you are indicating. It does not work that way per the RAW.
-
I'm rather certain that Lamech's interpretation is incorrect.
Not only do I believe that you do not get the straight +20 for your death, but I'm also convinced that you do not get the tag on Consequences that you are inflicting as part of the DC, as opposed to those that assumedly contributed to your decision to use it.
-
You're killing a mortal to power the spell. Instant +20 complexity. That's in addition to the +20 you can sneetch for consequences. If you decide to death curse when your still healthy for whatever reason, its 20(life)+20(consequences)+8(tags)+4 to 8(fate points)+lore+extra stuff. 52 minimum. Who ever gets hit by that better have plot device written all over them. Or a bucket load of fate points.
Read the section on why a sacrifice of a mortal counts for +20 complexity again. It's not an arbitrary number, it's directly the result of all the consequences your average mortal can have. You don't get to double up on that.
-
Tedronai has it. Power sources for a death curse should look something like this:
- shifts equal to all consequences (of any type) not previously taken
- one free tag per consequence - (two shifts per tag)
- fate points spent invoking relevant aspects (it would be unusual not to be able to spend them all) - (two shifts per invoke)
- declaration(s*) - (two shifts per successful declaration)
- lore
*While I tend to house rule soft limits on declarations I don't believe there are any limits other than imagination in the book.
Here's an old example - but it is the only death curse used in my game so far. Thaumaturgy - Johan's Curse
22 Shifts of Power:- 4 from Lore 4
- 2 from declaration In Johan's Grasp
- 2 from declaration Bleeding On Johan
- 6 from taking a severe consequence (the only one she had left)
- 8 from tagging each consequence*
The effect was split into a maneuver (Go to Hell!) with 13 shifts** and 9 shifts of duration.
* Free consequence tags only apply to death curses.
** Thaumaturgy avoids / negates defense rolls simply by assigning enough power to overcome any potential roll. The 13 shifts here break down into 4 shifts to create a sticky aspect, five shifts to match any 'superb' skill, and 4 shifts to match a maximum roll.
For the next "few years" Johan will have to deal with the Sent to Hell aspect. Should be interesting for a Worldwalker... ;D
-
shifts equal to all consequences (of any type) not previously taken
I'm not sure if extra social consequences should count (from stunts or Presence ratings of 5 or above). They don't provide power for any other type of magic, and I find it hard to see how they could apply here.
-
I don't think I agree with the "of any type" part. Dying and the Death Curse are a physical act. I don't think mental or social "extra" consequences should be used. That said the RAW don't really specify one way or the other so that would probably be up to the interpretation of the GM and the players.
-
I'm not sure if extra social consequences should count (from stunts or Presence ratings of 5 or above). They don't provide power for any other type of magic, and I find it hard to see how they could apply here.
Actually I think they do - if I remember correctly it's one of the book examples. Have to look for it later though, going to be busy for a few hours.
Edit: The social consequence in the book was to a standard consequence slot I think. But consequences are consequences, I don't differentiate based on where they came from.
-
- shifts equal to all consequences (of any type) not previously taken
- one free tag per consequence - (two shifts per tag)
I think you're applying these two in reverse order, and it makes a substantial difference.
I do not believe you get the free tag for consequences inflicted as part of the enactment of the DC.
-
Actually I think they do - if I remember correctly it's one of the book examples.
It's on YS269 - "This does not have to be direct injury, as stated above; any consequence will work..." That is for normal thaumaturgy and goes on to state it needs to be justifiable as contributing to the spell prep. The sidebar even notes some social or mental consequences taken / caused by Sells. It consumed his life and brought hollowness and misery to the Beckitts. While not stated, it also cost him his wife and family.
I think you're applying these two in reverse order, and it makes a substantial difference.
I do not believe you get the free tag for consequences inflicted as part of the enactment of the DC.
Hadn't really intended an order in the list above. That said, I think I did count it that way in the play example. Rereading YS282, you're probably correct. Have to retcon the example if I use it again...perhaps inflicting that last consequence as part of a declaration...which gives you the +2 again.
It might be worth reiterating that I think declarations are easily abused. :/ It's why we put soft caps in place.
-
Either way it is a great story bit.
-
I think you're applying these two in reverse order, and it makes a substantial difference.
I do not believe you get the free tag for consequences inflicted as part of the enactment of the DC.
I would say that you can. YS282 says all the consequences he has can be tagged, and additional consequences can be inflicted. It doesn't seem to be concrete on the order and, since it's the last thing that character will do, I see no reason not to let them tag the consequences they inflict.
-
It doesn't seem to be concrete on the order and
It is quite inherently concrete on the order, actually.
Tag all existing consequences.
Done? Good.
Now inflict additional consequences if you have space.
-
It is quite inherently concrete on the order, actually.
Tag all existing consequences.
Done? Good.
Now inflict additional consequences if you have space.
But it says "and" not "then." If I were to tell you that today I'm going to a bar and going to work, I'm saying nothing of the order in which I plan to do those things.
I'm not saying that my opinion is definitely right here, and I definitely see where your opinion comes from, but I feel the language is open enough to allow for either interpretation.
Like many things in the rules, it's ultimately going to come down to individual GMs on this matter.
-
Where else in the game does it allow you to double dip on a consequence or other aspect on a single effect?
-
Where else in the game does it allow you to double dip on a consequence or other aspect on a single effect?
No where that I am aware of but a death curse is a singularly unique type of event. One fully deserving of its own unique mechanic as far as I am concerned.
-
Where else in the game does it allow you to double dip on a consequence or other aspect on a single effect?
How is it double dipping? There are two mechanics applying here. First, you may inflict consequences to contribute their shift value to a spell. Second, you may invoke aspects (if justifyable) to contribute +2 shifts to the spell. Under the standard thaumaturgy rules, I read it as legitimate to inflict, say, a serious consequence on yourself for +6 shifts, then spend a Fate to invoke the resulting aspect for another +2. This assumes that you can justify drawing on the aspect to benefit the spell, and that you have too much available Fate and too few available/appropriate aspects.
I can see the argument about timing, and agree that it's not entirely clearly defined. However, it does state in the Death Curse sidebar that Death Curses count as rituals but with the normal preparation replaced by the circumstances of death (can only tag and inflict consequences, so no sitting out scenes!). But the general thaumaturgy rules allow the various methods of preparation to be "combined in any way you choose" (YS268), which does not appear to be over-ruled in the sidebar.
That said, even though I think the rules allow for you to inflict a consequence then tag it, I think that balance would be better served by allowing the character to do only one or the other. Meh, tables can work this out as they want. However, the two likely resolutions work out to:
1) the shift value of all unused consequences, plus two shifts for each used consequence (assuming the order matters) OR
2) the shift value of all unused consequences, plus two shifts for every consequence slot on the sheet (assuming you can use either/both options in the order you see fit)
Take your pick.
As an interesting aside, either option results in stronger death curses from wizards who happen to have extra consequences (from high ratings in the stress-track skills or certain stunts). Just having the Resilient Self-Image stunt, for example, adds at least +4 (and possibly up to +8, with option 2 above) to the potential strength of a death curse.
-
I see it as double dipping because you're getting two benefits at once for the same aspect.
-
It really doesn't matter much. Either you take the consequence and then get a free tag* or you simply declare something related as you do. "I push towards the monster in spite of the claws Ripping Out My Guts (consequence) and without defending at all reach out and Grab It's Throat (declaration). Or something else. Declarations are too easy by the book.
*I tend to agree with Tedronai's interpretation after he pointed it out. It does state "...all of the consequences he has can be tagged, and he can can inflict more...if he has the space..."
I just don't think it matters much either way.
-
The DC sidebar could also be read as not allowing declarations, by the way. It seems to me to indicate that while thaumaturgy normally allows four components of preparation (invoke aspects, make declarations, accept or inflict consequences, and skip scenes), for the death curse "the components of preparation are the circumstances of the wizard’s death—all of the consequences he has can be tagged, and he can inflict more upon himself if he’s got the space". It makes sense that skipping scenes is right out, but it also leaves out declarations -- possibly deliberately, on the basis that preparation declarations represent mini-scenes, which there is no time for.
-
You don't consider "the circumstances of his death" to be declarations? Blood seems to allow for lots of useful 'circumstances' by itself. But perhaps you're correct...in that case Death Curses aren't going to be very effective unless the wizard chooses to concede (and die) unreasonably (IMO) early.
-
Beyond Becq's most recent post, which coincides well with my interpretation,
Declarations are too easy by the book.
There are two methods of making Declarations 'by the book'.
1) Spend a FP... Unless you're rich in FP and poor in invokable aspects, this comes out net neutral.
2) Roll an appropriate skill against a difficulty ultimately set by the GM... In this case, there really is no measure 'by the book' of how easy or difficult a given Declaration will be. There are guidelines, and there are suggestions, but there is no definitive answer for a specific prospective truth.
-
There are two methods of making Declarations 'by the book'.
1) Spend a FP... Unless you're rich in FP and poor in invokable aspects, this comes out net neutral.
2) Roll an appropriate skill against a difficulty ultimately set by the GM... In this case, there really is no measure 'by the book' of how easy or difficult a given Declaration will be. There are guidelines, and there are suggestions, but there is no definitive answer for a specific prospective truth.
It's also a free action which can be repeated (for different aspects) indefinitely. As for the GM setting difficulties, you're correct - if the GM is willing to be arbitrary he can kill the party at any time...or set difficulties too high to meet. Not exactly a good solution in my opinion. :/
Both declaration usage and difficulty setting fall under the "Don't be a d1ck." rule. But that isn't always applied universally or voluntarily.
-
If your GM not being a 'd1ck' causes problems in your game, I propose that s/he has failed.
-
Then why raise it as a potential solution?
-
You don't consider "the circumstances of his death" to be declarations? Blood seems to allow for lots of useful 'circumstances' by itself.
Which could be counted as "double-dipping", since you're already getting completely free tags on every drop of blood you've shed (ie, consequences). But I'm just suggesting that interpretation for the consideration of the readers; it's not necessarily clear to me that my interpretation is absolute RAW.
But perhaps you're correct...in that case Death Curses aren't going to be very effective unless the wizard chooses to concede (and die) unreasonably (IMO) early.
Maybe ... maybe not. It could be argued that Maggie's death curse was nothing more than a long-duration aspect (maneuver) placed on Lord Raith, and endlessly compelled by the GM. Or perhaps a couple of stacking aspects. In either case, such a spell wouldn't take all that many shifts to create. What it would mean (if the interpretation is correct) is that you can't simply vaporize your killer with your death curse -- you have to be more subtle to make it really hurt.
-
Then why raise it as a potential solution?
I think you misunderstand.
Taking the necessary steps to avoid problems within the game IS follows the rule of 'don't be a d1ck'.
If those steps include increasing the difficulties of Declarations because they have become (or have been realized to be) 'too easy' relative to other methods of achieving similar results, then doing so follows the rule of 'don't be a d1ck'.
The GM doesn't even have to resort to 'rule 0' to address this problem. Those difficulties are explicitly within the GM's discretion. As is even the power to 'veto' a Declaration, which is explicitly recommended to be used under some circumstances.
-
Which could be counted as "double-dipping", since you're already getting completely free tags on every drop of blood you've shed (ie, consequences).
Hmm, I think the Opened Artery is the consequence. The blood is just scenery...and scenery is temporary aspect fodder. You still have to set the declaration up also, probably by rolling something observation related in this case.
But I'm just suggesting that interpretation for the consideration of the readers; it's not necessarily clear to me that my interpretation is absolute RAW.Maybe ... maybe not. It could be argued that Maggie's death curse was nothing more than a long-duration aspect (maneuver) placed on Lord Raith, and endlessly compelled by the GM. Or perhaps a couple of stacking aspects. In either case, such a spell wouldn't take all that many shifts to create. What it would mean (if the interpretation is correct) is that you can't simply vaporize your killer with your death curse -- you have to be more subtle to make it really hurt.
Don't know about Maggie's curse...between it and Lara the result was a take out. Who knows which happened when or how much help Lara may have had from the curse?
But even long duration aspects aren't cheap. See the example I posted here (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,32919.msg1482092.html#msg1482092). It took 22 shifts total. Drop 6 shifts (for three declarations) off the duration and it only lasts a few weeks. Probably not fun but certainly not the threat Harry makes death curses out to be.
I think you misunderstand.
Taking the necessary steps to avoid problems within the game IS follows the rule of 'don't be a d1ck'.
If those steps include increasing the difficulties of Declarations because they have become (or have been realized to be) 'too easy' relative to other methods of achieving similar results, then doing so follows the rule of 'don't be a d1ck'.
I understand. I simply classify taking arbitrary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary) action as being a d1ck. Unless you're a judge or a mathematician.
It's even worse since thaumaturgy explicitly uses declarations (Many declarations!) as a primary power source. So the GM is taking the position of "it's only ok when I agree with the results". Yeah...fail.
To reiterate previous comments, this is why my group agreed to put soft caps on declarations. That way you know when they're going to get harder and why. No need to be arbitrary.
The GM doesn't even have to resort to 'rule 0' to address this problem. Those difficulties are explicitly within the GM's discretion. As is even the power to 'veto' a Declaration, which is explicitly recommended to be used under some circumstances.
Not sure rule 0 even exists in FATE but doesn't matter - I didn't mention anything having to do with it. ???
-
I understand. I simply classify taking arbitrary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary) action as being a d1ck. Unless you're a judge or a mathematician.
It would seem arbitrary action on the part of the GM is viewed as a problem from your perspective. The GM working to avoid solve that problem, then, is part of the same 'don't be a d1ck' rule that lead to seeking a solution to 'too easy' declarations.
To reiterate previous comments, this is why my group agreed to put soft caps on declarations. That way you know when they're going to get harder and why. No need to be arbitrary.
I'm glad to see that you seem to have found a solution.
Not sure rule 0 even exists in FATE but doesn't matter - I didn't mention anything having to do with it. ???
Just heading off what I viewed as a likely path for further argument. The principle of 'rule 0' gets brought up a lot in discussions like this one. In fact, I'm pretty sure it WAS referenced in this thread shortly before my post, if only obliquely.
if the GM is willing to be arbitrary he can kill the party at any time...
Yep, sounds like an application of 'what the GM says, goes'.
-
It would seem arbitrary action on the part of the GM is viewed as a problem from your perspective. The GM working to avoid solve that problem, then, is part of the same 'don't be a d1ck' rule that lead to seeking a solution to 'too easy' declarations.
Not really parsing what you're saying here. Doesn't matter though...I'm out for the night.
Yep, sounds like an application of 'what the GM says, goes'.
Err, no. Not at all. Unless you call stating NPCs rule 0 - that's how the GM kills characters - encounters.
-
Not really parsing what you're saying here. Doesn't matter though...I'm out for the night.
If Declarations are viewed as problematically 'too easy', and arbitrary judgment calls on the behalf of the GM are themselves considered to be a problem (arbitrary action being deemed 'd1ck-ish'), then those arbitrary judgment calls are not a viable solution to the original problem.
Implementing a 'soft cap' houserule, on the other hand, if accepted by the table as solving the problem and as not being the source of a problem in its own right, WOULD be a viable solution.
Err, no. Not at all. Unless you call stating NPCs rule 0 - that's how the GM kills characters - encounters.
(exaggerated for emphasis)
Player of recently dead PC: 'So, what were the stats on that mortal beat cop who just one-shotted me?'
GM: 'Roughly Legendary in anything physical, with stats elsewhere varying from Good to Superb, why?'
Player: 'Just wanted to know why it is that a mortal beat cop could compete in the Nevernever Olympics with a reasonable expectation of making it to the finals...'
GM: 'Because I said so, and I'm the GM, and what the GM says, goes.'
Player: 'And so do his players.'
Yes, statting NPCs with the express intent of killing the PCs is an exercise of Rule 0.
All arbitrary decision making powers placed in the hands of the GM are an exercise of the principle of Rule 0.
-
Yes, statting NPCs with the express intent of killing the PCs is an exercise of Rule 0.
All arbitrary decision making powers placed in the hands of the GM are an exercise of the principle of Rule 0.
I think your definition of rule 0 is wider than mine. However, it sounds like you're agreeing with me. Arbitrary or capricious decisions are bad - whether setting difficulties or NPC power levels.
-
Well, I don't see all arbitrary decisions as (inherently) bad, but I do see all things that create division within a gaming group as bad for that gaming group, which means that all arbitrary decisions ARE be bad for a given gaming group that includes members that see them that way with sufficient vehemence.