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.

Topics - VVolf

Pages: [1]

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 / 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 / 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 / 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]