ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Cadd on March 11, 2013, 02:43:22 PM
-
I've been thinking a bit, but I can't find anything in YS about it:
Consquences are temporary Aspects, right? So it should be possible to invoke one for a bonus?
Of course it would be very hard to justify invoking a physical consequence during a fistfight, but how about a "Bruised" consequence when trying to puppy-eye manipulate someone into letting you in "because I really need the company, and I don't feel safe at my place"?
Or a character with regular aspects representing a short fuse "ending" a social/mental conflict by taking a consequence "At the point of violence"; followed by throwing a punch tagging the consequence?
I can't find a rule against it, and as long as they make narrative sense I figure it's green; but on the other hand consequences are there to represent damage you've taken and as such is a hindrance, not a boon.
-
If the situation fits you can certainly invoke it. Aspects are out there to be used!
-
There should be no and is no rule against spending FPs to invoke your own aspects if you can arrive at a sufficiently compelling justification as to why they would benefit you in a particular circumstance. They are aspects like any other, they just tend towards favouring punitive effects in terms of ease of narrative justification (and reinforce this by providing a tag to the individual inflicting them).
Edit: or, more succinctly, what UmbraLux said
-
Invoking yes, tagging no.
-
Ah, check!
Thanks for the input!
-
Of course you can, but it costs a FP, just like any other aspect.
Tags are only for the character who created the aspect. So if you hurt yourself, sure.
-
Yeah, you can invoke any aspect if you can sell it--I've had wizards invoke their own consequences for power to their spells, for example, saying they're boosting the power by tapping into the anger and pain of the injury.
I've also had it happen where someone invokes a Severe consequence against an enemy to say things like, "Well, with his sword stuck in my gut, he's at point blank range and can't dodge my shotgun," and getting a bonus that way.
-
@Mr.Death
A good ol Sheath the Blade-type move eh? If someone is willing to get stabbed over it, works for me!
@All
Wouldn't invoking a physical consquence also work in regards to say, blood magic or empowering curses etc. I mean, that is essentially how wizard's get the juice for their death curses after all.
-
Of course. If you want to deal a consequence to yourself, you get that tag.
-
Of course. If you want to deal a consequence to yourself, you get that tag.
I don't think so.
Taking consequences to fuel spellcasting is strong enough without an extra +2.
-
I think he means afterward. Certainly you can't tag an aspect with the same action that's causing it, but in a subsequent action you could.
-
Still.
Taking consequences for spellcasting is really powerful without tags. No need to make it more powerful by giving it tags.
I hear people claim that magic is overpowered all the time. So I find it really puzzling that people tend to be so generous with their interpretations of its rules.
-
I just tend to interpret fuelling the spell in the first place as what is consuming the tag and leave it at that.
-
@All
My math on this is a little fuzzy at the moment and I haven't had a chance to review it in the book but - if you're taking it as a consquence that the spell would get the value of the consquence in shifts. Hence the power hence the lack of the tag...right?
Because if it's just - take the injury, treat as a normal aspect then why wouldn't it get the take and the duration of the consquence to spend FP on it to generate power? (Other than it being a powerful way to make magic even more power.)
-
Still.
Taking consequences for spellcasting is really powerful without tags. No need to make it more powerful by giving it tags.
I hear people claim that magic is overpowered all the time. So I find it really puzzling that people tend to be so generous with their interpretations of its rules.
YS98:
On any aspect you create or discover in a scene, get the first invocation for free (as in, without spending any fate points).
Unless you find a specific rule which overrides this, then you get the free tag on your consequences. Spellcasting is overpowered, but that's not a reason to ignore a rule and say you're not. What I'm stating is not a "generous interpretation" but RAW, printed in black and white.
Non-spellcasters can do this too.
-
Which is where my interpretation, above, comes in.
-
I think just the fact that you can't double down on it (i.e., you can't tag a consequence on the same action that it's created from/for) is balance enough. And besides, for anything above a Mild consequence, it's a diminishing return--you might get an extra 4 shifts of power from taking a Moderate consequence, but can only tag it for a +2 afterward. Same with Severe or Extreme--they're still only good for one major boost in power.
-
I think it works very well, thematically. For those all or nothing moments, or those times when any regard for personal safety is thrown out the window. I jive.
-
Page 106 says tags are for when you make a roll to create or gain access to an Aspect. Which wouldn't apply in this case, I think.
I choose this interpretation because the alternative is dumb. Taking a mild consequence shouldn't be a good thing. But if it's taggable for you, then its downside is outweighed by the +2 bonus from the tag.
(Of course, this is all a bit of a shell game because the rules are not nearly well-written enough to take this level of scrutiny. I'm totally applying post-facto justification to make the rules the way I think they should be. You probably are too, it's not really avoidable unless you're willing to accept Schrodinger's RPG.)
Spellcasting is powerful the way I read it, but not really overpowered. Taking consequences to fuel a spell is effective but not game-breaking or something you want to do all the time. Your interpretation changes that, at least somewhat.
-
Scant, that page then references the list on page 105 directly. Specifically on that list is "Inflict a consequence."
Technically, by the rules, you cannot get a free tag on your own aspects (per page 106) but this is directly contradicted through out the text.
Basically, you're right. You can't read the rules that closely. But there is no specific contradiction, so I see no reason to say that, by RAW, you can't tag your own consequences if you inflict them upon yourself.
I'm not saying it's not a good houserule though.
-
As you say, there are contradictions.
Therefore, there are no true RAW. Interpretation is not only possible but required.
One of the possible interpretations is unbalanced, so let's go with a different one.
-
Maybe it's just semantics, but would the wording "make a roll to create or gain access to an aspect" be important? When taking a consequence to super charge a spell you never actually roll anything to create said consequence, possibly implying "no roll = no free tag".
-
If that were the case, navel gazing maneuvers would be useless.
-
It would have to be 'make a roll or spend a FP to discover or create an aspect' so as to account for declarations.
If that were the case, navel gazing maneuvers would be useless.
How so?
NGMs are effected by means of a roll. They're not free aspects.
-
I was given to understand that navel gazing maneuvers didn't need a roll, because there was no opposition to them.
-
And the "roll" in the case of causing a consequence would be whatever one is doing to themselves to cause the consequence. Right? Or are we assuming it's a given that a person can injure themselves just so?
-
The GM decides the difficulty of all Naval Gazing Maneuvers. They're not free.
-
And the "roll" in the case of causing a consequence would be whatever one is doing to themselves to cause the consequence. Right? Or are we assuming it's a given that a person can injure themselves just so?
it's kind of unclear in general. I mean if you're activly trying to injure yourself I would probably let the player make an attack roll aginst themselves with no defense roll.
Bur in the case of super charging a spell via taking a consequence, IIRC the consequence is taken before the control roll is made. Causing the consequence to basically come out of thin air.
-
I'll have to check the rulebook, because I was fairly sure the use of the term "navel gazing" meant that it was basically a no-difficulty, if it makes sense go ahead, type of maneuver.
As for charging the spell via consequence, I think the idea there is you're calling up power like normal, only taking it as a consequence instead of stress (at least for Evocation).
-
I could by that, even if one is jumping to stress tracks - I could also see some GM's wanting a roll involved if it's power drawn from the physical stress track or tags as a result of consequence.
-
I'm kind of fuzzy on the idea of using a roll to determine a consequence that you're inflicting on a willing person. I mean, if you need a little bloodletting to power a ritual, does a high roll mean you accidentally gut yourself instead?
-
I'm kind of fuzzy on the idea of using a roll to determine a consequence that you're inflicting on a willing person. I mean, if you need a little bloodletting to power a ritual, does a high roll mean you accidentally gut yourself instead?
if it requires so much blood that it's anything more than flavoring or a declairation? I would say it's possible to accidentally go to far as harm yourself. Though honestly that's probably better modeled as a compel on an aspect for the ritual.
-
Maybe it's just semantics, but would the wording "make a roll to create or gain access to an aspect" be important? When taking a consequence to super charge a spell you never actually roll anything to create said consequence, possibly implying "no roll = no free tag".
Um, yeah. I was just saying that.
It would have to be 'make a roll or spend a FP to discover or create an aspect' so as to account for declarations.
You could argue that there's no tag on FP Declarations, actually.
I wouldn't, personally, but you could make that argument.
I'll have to check the rulebook, because I was fairly sure the use of the term "navel gazing" meant that it was basically a no-difficulty, if it makes sense go ahead, type of maneuver.
There is still a roll. Page 207 is clear on that, though it does mention that the roll is likely to be easy.
I could by that, even if one is jumping to stress tracks - I could also see some GM's wanting a roll involved if it's power drawn from the physical stress track or tags as a result of consequence.
That would be a houserule and not a very well-thought-out one.
The rules are pretty clear on how you fuel spells with consequences. There's no rolling involved, and there's no good reason to get rolling involved.
-
@Sanctaphrax
Never said it was!
-
It would have to be 'make a roll or spend a FP to discover or create an aspect' so as to account for declarations.
How so?
NGMs are effected by means of a roll. They're not free aspects.
I admit up front what I'm about to say is pretty sketchy, so bare with me. It is mildly implied that you always make a roll with declairations, even when you don't. IIRC you don't have to decide to use a FP on a declairation until after you make the roll (and fail). This again sort of implies that there's never a reason to NOT try and roll first. Any situation where you don't roll would mean you couldn't succeed on the roll even with a +4, thus it's basically an automatic fail and you're spending a FP to pass it.
-
Sanctaphrax said it, navel gazing maneuvers still require a roll.
Additionally though they can be opposed. YS has an example of someone picking a lock during a gun fight. The attempt to put the maneuver on himself to have better concentration or something gets opposed by a block from someone shooting at him.