Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - VVolf

Pages: [1]

DFRPG / Re: Thaumaturgical counterspell?

« on: November 22, 2011, 03:42:40 PM »

Quote from: Watson on November 22, 2011, 11:37:43 AM

I can't see any reason why a counterspell can't be cast using Thaumaturgy. What are your comments?

I'd definitely say it can be done, however if you plan on countering something like a generational curse, realize that that's kind of like taking a mallet to a nuclear warhead to prevent it from leaking radiation. Yeah it might work in the really, really long term, but you might not like the immediate effects of doing so.

DFRPG / Re: Help with an NPC

« on: November 22, 2011, 03:22:56 PM »

Quote from: CottbusFiles on November 18, 2011, 11:11:37 AM

You can reach him most easily by opening a portal on wall street.

I'd be hesitant to open a portal to the Never Never on wall street, you might end up in a Dragon's hoard.

DFRPG / Mundain Armor and when to apply it.

« on: November 08, 2011, 03:13:28 PM »

Here's an interesting quandary...

A character in our game made a resource roll to buy an Kevlar Plated trench coat, which as military gear would constitute Armor 2.
Since then this armor bonus has been applied to Punches, claws, and Ax-swings. My mind keeps going back to the argument between Micheal and Sonya that Micheal's armor wouldn't stop bullets but Sonya's Kevlar wouldn't stop blades or claws.
On one hand I don't want to punish the player who made the resource roll every time he's facing something that not what the armor was designed to protect against.
On the other hand, I don't want the players who spent refresh for toughness powers to get armor to feel like they spent that refresh for something they could have gotten without it.

I'm curious to see what y'all think of this problem.

DFRPG / Re: Duel of Wills

« on: October 19, 2011, 02:43:44 PM »

I would say it depends on how you intend for the Duel to proceed...

I'd run it as a Cat and Mouse style conflict YS194.
The benefit of doing this is you don't end up playing for hours and hours when the death stone keeps moving back and forth, instead you set a limit on the number of rolls and have a running total determine the winner.

I'd also say that I think raw force of will would best be implemented by Conviction, per the Acts of Faith trapping: "Roll Conviction whenever you're called upon to test the strength of your beliefs."
Discipline is more used for concentration and mental defense...

I can totally see this contest done as a series of Conviction vs. Discipline rolls with each taking turns to push with conviction and hold it off with discipline. The stronger will might have the bigger push, but the more focused mind can prevent the death pebble from being moved.

The advantage to having the contest as a zone-pushing is that it better allows for interference only when one side is about to lose, the disadvantage is it could potentially go on forever.
The advantage to having the contest as a cat and mouse style encounter is that the time it would take is limited. Others could interfere just as the contest is ending, though if the contest is fairly even at the end it could fog who was losing toward the end if someone was to interfere.

Ultimately it's up to you how you want to run it.

DFRPG / Re: GM Help - Forcing Realistic consequences...

« on: October 19, 2011, 02:38:10 AM »

Quote from: sinker on October 14, 2011, 07:45:54 PM

Alright VVolf, I think I see the issue. It seems to me that you have a player (or players) who may not understand the nuances of the system, and you're trying to teach him (or them) by negatively reinforcing "incorrect" actions. This can work, however it's definitely not the best way to teach and it can lead to some sore feelings.

Partially yes and partially no, another point of this is that I'm trying to keep the other players from feeling as though they are unimportant in combat.

Quote from: sinker on October 14, 2011, 07:45:54 PM

What I would suggest is that you sit down with your players and explain to them that in DFRPG the narrative can effect the mechanics and that part of the narrative is theirs. Encourage them to use this power effectively and for the good of the table. Tell them to have fun with it. Explain the abstract concepts that are stress, consequence, and the take out. Help them make the game that you want together. Everyone will really appreciate your guidance.

As I mentioned earlier, I fully intend to have a talk with my players at the start of the next session. I intend to both apologize for the quadriplegic bit and explain the abstract concepts, but also warn them that there needs to be logical flow from declared attack and desired result and give an example of a successful attack which doesn't actually connect. I'll also mention that he's free to pull his punches with supernatural strength to reduce the additional shifts if the character wants to hold back, as well as a warning that full-tilt attacks are going to be more likely to draw lethal-hit compels.

/.-, VV

DFRPG / Re: Neutral Grounds - enforcement / repercussions?

« on: October 14, 2011, 02:38:43 AM »

Quote from: wyvern on October 11, 2011, 07:54:09 PM

To provide a bit more detail: I'm using a transplanted copy of the Neutral Grounds coffee shop from the Baltimore example city. The PC has decided that he "needs" talented allies, and that the obvious way to acquire such is by using the addictive saliva power to spike drinks of various minor talents at said coffee shop.

Just for additional clarification, if he is buying the drinks, spiking them, offering them to people, and they accept, then I don't believe there's any violation. If he's spiking the drinks the patrons ordered themselves then he's in violation against the owner of the establishment and against those who's drinks he spiked.

DFRPG / Re: Neutral Grounds - enforcement / repercussions?

« on: October 14, 2011, 02:32:33 AM »

Quote from: Becq on October 12, 2011, 01:32:59 AM

In your particular case, my suggestion would be to find a suitably fancy font and print out a nice card with the following written on it:
o Violator of the Unseelie Accords
Then show the card to the player and tell him that this new aspect will be his should he follow through with the attack -- permanently, until satisfaction has been had by any aggrieved parties. Give him the choice, much the same as if he was violating the Laws of Magic, but leave the decision to the player.

Should he accept the aspect, you now have a new plot hook to compel whenever you deem it appropriate. For example, any time the character might otherwise be protected by his faction, or whenever an entity might otherwise be reluctant to attack the player due to percieved protection by the Accords or the player's former faction.

If this is something which the character has already done, then perhaps have the local winter court drake drop by to inquire how he intends to pay off the grievous debt he owes to the Unseelie court for violation of their accords... with a heavy implication the drake intends to take a down-payment of his arse and work his way up. Here the PC could attempt to bolt, likely getting banned from building, and live with his new Violator aspect... or he could opt out of that aspect by making an agreement with the winter court... which I'm sure there's no way for that to come back and bite him... none what so ever... *cackles maniacally*

After all, this is the fae... deals, balance, and favors.

DFRPG / Re: GM Help - Forcing Realistic consequences...

« on: October 14, 2011, 01:57:59 AM »

I get where people are coming from, the point I'm trying to make is to drive home is what Harry says in the margin of Your Story.

Quote from: YS183

Super-strength is no joke. In the comic books someone can get tossed around or battered by a guy who can bench press a car and not end up in traction. The truth is, if something supernaturally strong gets its hands on you — you’re dead.

Yes I realize this is very similar to the often asked question regarding magical use and law breaking, and I agree I should have compelled an aspect if the guy's death seemed the most "within the realm of reason" result. I'll also note that the fact that such questions come up a lot is a sign that it is something people often need help in...

As for "pulling one's punches" I understand completely, and if he had said before attacking that he wasn't intending to attack with something hard enough to kill then I would have asked him how much of his strength bonus he wanted to use. But when you punch as hard as hitting someone with a car and you are aiming for someone's face... there's a good chance there's gonna be grey matter to clean up. At the same time if you are trying to hold back then it's less likely you'll take them out. If you play with knives, someone's liable to end up cut... if you play with battlefield weaponry, someone's liable to end up dead.

Another aspect of this was the lack of any good story telling, if I said that the thug was taken out and he went on to give a narrative like sinker's example then everything's well and good, but when all I get is "I punch him in the face" and "No kill, just knocked out." then there's a disconnect between what's happening mechanically and a logical, reasonable conclusion to the exchange. If there's some explanation of how the stress is inflicted without the lethal attack landing I don't have a problem with it, but I need an explanation... I need to tell my players, "Help me tell our story in a way that makes sense."

That's an aspect I intend to tag at the start of our next session...

After all, to me it's not really a question of who's right and who's wrong, it's a question of "this is an area of our collective story-telling that is poor" and "how can we improve it?"

So, thanks for the suggestions for those that offered them, and meh to those just playing the blame game.

/.-, VV

DFRPG / GM Help - Forcing Realistic consequences...

« on: October 13, 2011, 01:35:49 PM »

Here's the general situation, We began our campaign at 10 refresh and have advanced to the point of having 13 refresh. After making some adjustments to his character a were-fox-hybrid has supernatural strength and claws.

When attacking some street thugs (normal humans) the player describes punching the thug in the face, between a good attack (no claws) and a poor defense roll the thug is taking 8 shifts of stress. I say "Ok, he's dead." to which the player responds, "I'm not trying to kill him!"
"... Ok, so You've got supernatural strength, you're punching with about the force of a car going 20 miles per hour, and you're applying that directly to someone's face.... how is that not supposed to kill them?"
"If I take them out, then if just means I achieve my goal of knocking them out... I'm not trying to kill them."

At this point I gave the thug an extreme consequence: "Quadriplegic" and moved on... I guess what I'm asking is how's the best way to show that using that kind of firepower will have serious consequences ?

Any thoughts or examples of presenting consequences to players in response to their actions ? Or better phrasing, how do I effect a "You might not have trying to kill him, but..." scenario without necessarily railroading the players who've already spent all their fate chips?

DFRPG / Re: New player, lookin for help going from concept to character..

« on: October 13, 2011, 05:19:41 AM »

To me it would seem the catch is that he has to be wearing the mask, +0 for being a general catch. If there are 30 or so such people around the world it might be possible for some research to turn up the information, so +1 there. Though the availability of the catch is difficult to measure... If the mask can only be taken off by you, then +0, if anyone or anything could take off the mask, then you might could get a +2 out of it, but if you did this you could probably expect people knocking it off to happen on occasion.

Also you may want to clarify with your GM which vamps you'd be immune to, Black is obviously yes, but red and white court I'd suspect you might still vulnerable to (Otherwise your red-court infected buddy would be swiping the mask)

DFRPG / Rote Spell Questions

« on: October 04, 2011, 11:23:42 PM »

As I understand it, having a spell as a rote allows you to forgo rolling to control the spell and eliminate negative effects from low rolls when made to target spells. My question(s) are in regard to using rote spells with supplemental actions.

Example: Gregory when casting fire magic has Superb conviction and discipline (5 each).

Case 1: Gregory wants to cast a rote fire shield (block) and use a supplemental action to advance one zone.

Case 2: Gregory wants to use a supplemental action to advance one zone and cast a rote fire attack rolls discipline to and aim gets (+ - - []: -1).

As the block is not targeting anything Greg's player doesn't need to roll, however if he had rolled, the supplemental action would have added a -1 to the roll.

Which is correct?

A. Case 1 is unaffected by the supplemental action as there is no roll with the rote spell, Case 2 the targeting roll suffers the -1 penalty for the supplemental action, bringing the attack to 3 targeting of the weapon 5 spell.

B. The rote still suffers as though there was a -1 penalty, in Case 1 the block is only 4 strength block, and in case 2 the attack is a targeting 3 of a weapon 5 spell

C. Adding the supplement action changes the parameters so the rote can not be using unless it was designed to account for a -1 penalty for a supplemental action.

D. Something else that I'm not seeing or accounting for...

DFRPG / Re: Rules Question: Specific Additional vs. Standard Consequences

« on: June 01, 2011, 07:29:56 AM »

Quote from: devonapple on June 01, 2011, 07:04:49 AM

B) What *I* disagree with is the "take a check on my 3 and 2 boxes" part because my impression has always been that you take ONE stress hit after taking Consequences, so that 5 stress could not be split up into 3 and 2, or 1 and 4. In my game, this character would probably have had to take a Severe Consequence to stay in the Conflict. I am happy to be corrected with a book reference, of course.

*Shuffles through book.* Not specifically stated either way, but the example on page 204 largely implies you are correct, so duly noted about one box per hit.

Easy enough to house-rule if people want to, but should probably be stated to players either way.
If house-ruled players should be probably able to RP how the damage is being broken up:
"I roll into the hit, taking a 3 hit from the baseball ball and a 2 hit as I fall and smack into the pavement."
Which is less easy to do for social or mental attacks.

DFRPG / Rules Question: Specific Additional vs. Standard Consequences

« on: June 01, 2011, 06:45:30 AM »

I didn't see a sub-forum for Rules Questions, so I'm just posting here in the main forum.

And just to frame the question, this isn't intended to be arguing a side, I'm more asking as how I should rule this as a GM.

Say a PC has enough Endurance to gain an additional mild consequence, and chooses to take a physical consequence in combat...

Does the PC have to use his standard, general Mild consequence before he can use his "additional" physical consequence?

Quote from: Example Situation

Jonathan is sitting at the bar having a drink when an inebriated Steve comes up to him and decks him out of the blue.

Jonathan's player attempts Athletics to dodge Steve's Fists roll and fails miserably.
"Drunken Boxing, FTW!"
"Shut up Steve!"
Jonathan's player decides to take it on the chin, suffering a mild physical consequence, and weighs his character's actions...

Jonathan is slammed across the bar leaving a rattling sensation in his teeth. He glances about the room quickly, sure he could shift into a bear and maul Steve in a heartbeat, but there's too many people in the bar and too many rumors of bear attacks in the city lately. Totally not fair... most of those weren't even me. Argh, Maybe I can talk this guy down, or at least convince him to step out back, then I can slap him around for a bit and call it a night.

Jonathan attempts some Social skills to direct Steve outside, but Steve's having none of it and unloads a mountainous intimidate check, spending almost all his fate points and tagging a few aspects which Jonathan hadn't realized Steve was aware of. With an 11 shift hit, Steve is pressuring Jonathan for a confession, and Jonathan's player is scrambling to avoid it: The drunken detective is hungry for a collar to close the case, Jonathan's not the killer, but confessing to what Steve is accusing him of is enough to get him locked up long enough for the real killer to split town...
"Spill your beans or they'll be making a rug outta you!"
"Shut up Steve!"
Jonathan still has a severe consequence from a rough fight in the previous session (Ok, maybe a bear wearing a cast was much more noticeable... at least he got another fate point on it when Steve tagged it).

"I've got it!" declares Jonathan's player, "I'll take a moderate social consequence, 'Nervous, Uncontrollable Shaking' for -4, take a check on my 3 and 2 boxes, and take a mild social consequence 'Sweating', 4+3+2+2 is 11."

"You can't do that."
"Gasp, Cheese-monger McRules-laywer speaks!"
"Shut up Steve! You were saying, Cheese-monger?"
"It says an additional mild physical consequence, not an extra mild physical consequence. Additional means in addition to the first, so you can only use the second mild consequence when it's for a physical consequence."
"No, additional means the same as extra, so long as at least one mild consequence is physical I should be fine."
"So then what does subtractional mean?"
"..." "..."
"Shut up Steve!"

So, thoughts, opinions... how should this situation go?

Should Jonathan be able to take another mild consequence?
Should Cheese-monger McRules-Lawyer not argue semantics or is he correct?
Should Steve just stop talking? Is it even physically possible for him to do so?

Find out, in the replies to this topic!

Pages: [1]