31
DFRPG / Re: Yet Another 'My Character Idea' Topic
« on: May 01, 2010, 07:00:06 PM »
Falar, how much refresh does this character have left?
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.
32
DFRPG / Re: Mimic Power Abuses
« on: May 01, 2010, 06:30:55 PM »
I would say that anyone stealing 9 refresh worth of powers and skills from others better be prepared to get a serious beatdown.
33
DFRPG / Re: Emotions fuel magic right?
« on: May 01, 2010, 07:34:51 AM »So your saying that only emotions/pain above the norm should be able to fuel magic? Meaning that even if my base level of x emotion is two to three times that of a normal persons i still cant "tap into" it anymore then the normal person can. That makes a certain amount of sense. i would use christine? harrys brothers love interest to argue against it though. she is described in the early books as "to full of emotion" and that is why shes so prized as a chew toy, because her greater depth of emotion makes her energy "more potent" and possibly means theirs more of it.
Although Christine is "full of emotion" something presumably still has to be taking place to bring forth her emotions. So that is not a "constant" situation, so it doesn't really relate to my point.
As to the concept of more potent emotions... Lets assume Christine has aspects of "heart on her sleeve" and another aspect of "Deeper than the deepest ocean". Raith's would be able to invoke both aspects on the same roll when feeding on her, giving them +4 to the feed roll, making it pretty much guaranteed they will get a huge amount of power from her. Therefore she is a potent prize for them. However, if Christine were a wizard she could use these same aspects to increase all sorts of things that benefit from positive emotions instead of negative.
Now, lets assume a wizard has "Quick to anger" and "Fury of the ages"... So he is in the same boat, but with anger instead of love. He would anger fast, and his anger would run strong and deep. So he could invoke 2 aspects when attacking out of anger. However, this could be used against him as well, allowing NPCs to get him so angry he kills innocents with magic if he isn't careful.
So basically taking multiple emotions that can power your wizard abilities makes for a lot of power, but also a MASSIVE weakness.
34
DFRPG / Re: Emotions fuel magic right?
« on: April 30, 2010, 11:57:57 PM »Some very good ideas here , but my original question was how would you represent drawing power from persistent and constant pain, not a form of pain that is temporary.
The Aspect Idea could work, but that only comes up when you have fate pionts to spend. and/or your st feels like invoking you're "in horrible pain" aspect to give you fate points. certainly a viable solution but might not appeal to some players due to its more hit and miss aplications for something that thematically should more or less be "always on".
Ahh, missed part of your original post, sorry.
I think I would allow only new, or temporarily greatly increased, pain to be invoked to power sorcery. So most of the time the constant pain can't be invoked because it is just part of the background pain of the persons life. They are "used" to it. So the only time they can invoke it is if the pain itself is invoked by something else, either an action of their own, or by taking physical stress. Once that happens they can invoke the pain aspect to power spells.
I don't know if all that makes sense, but I understand it.
35
DFRPG / Re: A wall of fire
« on: April 30, 2010, 11:31:27 PM »I agree with you guys, it can be all those things. The more I learn the magic system the more I appreciate it's flexibility - really fantastic! I've been too rigid in my thinking - I guess D&D has me expecting very defined spellcasting
It's not just spell casting, it is everything.
For instance, you can even resolve a major conflict with a simple or extended contest if the players agree... Lets say you have assembled a somewhat large team for a big battle, you have all the PCs (4 players), 4 white council wardens, and 2 summer court folks, up against 12 demons and the sorcerer that summoned them.
Rather than taking a few hours to fight the whole thing out, roll an extended contest. Each player rolls using their strongest offensive skills (feel free to invoke aspects), and they also roll for the NPC groups on their side using an average skill level for the groups. All this is summed for the players side of the battle. You also keep track of each player and groups individual result for later.
You then roll proportionately the same number of rolls for the demons, 1 using the sorcerers best skill and then 6 using the average demon skill (the demons have 12 on their side vs. 10 on the players, so they get one extra roll). Then compare the sums, and determine which side wins.
The more shifts the winning side gets the more people the losing side loses (not always dead, but out of the fight for now). Whoever rolled the worst on the losing side is the first one taken out, second worst, second taken out, etc. (those in "groups" just lose one member per loss until paid up). From a story aspect the people that rolled the best on the winning side are the ones that took out the ones that rolled worst on the losing side, allowing the players and GM to put together an interesting narrative despite the simplistic combat. Once the dust is settled continue this process until there is a winner, or until everyone agrees it is time to go back to "normal" combat because the numbers are small enough. One caveat... At least half of the players should make it to the end fight no matter how bad they roll (possibly by giving them a chance to help each other recover that the NPCs don't get), and the main antagonist (the sorcerer in this case) should also make it to the end no matter what.
If you want to do this even faster, just reduce the numbers small enough for the final battle based on just the first contest, no extended needed. So if the sorcerer wins by 5 shifts then the PCs were beaten up pretty bad, the are down to 2 PCs and one Warden vs. 4 demons and the sorcerer.
Or, if you want to do is super fast just chose how big the "Main" conflict should be, 4 PCs vs. Sorcerer and 4 demons perhaps, and just assume the other people are off fighting each other and how that turns out will be decided by how the PCs do. The downside to this method compared to the other two is that if any of the NPCs on the PCs side are important to them, like maybe one or two are actual faces, you don't have a chance to narrate their fate directly.
36
DFRPG / Re: Emotions fuel magic right?
« on: April 30, 2010, 10:58:17 PM »
Harry has a "Not so subtle, still quick to anger" aspect. He can invoke "Still quick to anger" to increase the power of his offensive spells. However, the GM can also invoke it to cause Harry to lose control and do more damage than he wants to do... Of course Harry can chose to lose a fate point to avoid this, and in the context of the books I think Harry does this fairly often.
I think all wizards can use anger to fuel spell damage, but if they don't have the aspect inherently like Harry then the aspect has to be placed on them by someone else (massive taunting, torturing a loved one, etc.). Same with pain and other such strong negative emotions. Although they can probably also bring it up themselves with a consequence like biff describes.
On the other hand, Love, peace, and such emotions can probably be used for more positive magic, like healing magic.
BTW, the "Not so subtle" part can be invoked by the GM when Harry tries to do more subtle things, like veils, to decrease his chance of success or the potency of the veil after it succeeds.
I think all wizards can use anger to fuel spell damage, but if they don't have the aspect inherently like Harry then the aspect has to be placed on them by someone else (massive taunting, torturing a loved one, etc.). Same with pain and other such strong negative emotions. Although they can probably also bring it up themselves with a consequence like biff describes.
On the other hand, Love, peace, and such emotions can probably be used for more positive magic, like healing magic.
BTW, the "Not so subtle" part can be invoked by the GM when Harry tries to do more subtle things, like veils, to decrease his chance of success or the potency of the veil after it succeeds.
37
DFRPG / Re: Autumn and Spring Courts
« on: April 30, 2010, 08:28:48 PM »Well, I think the earlier comment is the most important one here - there's actually a discussion in Summer Knight ():(click to show/hide)
"The Nevernever is a big place. In fact, it's the biggest place. The Nevernever is what the wizards call the entirety of the realm of spirit. It isn't a physical place, with geography and weather patterns and so on. it's a shadow world, a magical realm, and its substance is as mutable as thought...it contains within it just about any kind of spirit realm you can imagine, somewhere. Heaven, Hell, Olympus, Elysium, Tartarus, Gehenna - you name it, and it's in the Nevernever somewhere. In theory, at any rate.
The parts of the Nevernever closest to the mortal world are almost completely controlled by the Sidhe. This part of the spirit realm is called Faerie..."
So this establishes that the Faerie courts live in a small, small corner of the spirit realms - the corner touching the mortal realm, where there's a lot of crossover and interaction. However, it also establishes that the rest of the Nevernever is infinite.
So the idea of a former Autumn/Spring court - or even the vague remnants of one - doesn't contradict the cycle-as-written as long as they're not part of it. Four real possibilities come to mind:
- They aren't mentioned because they never existed. QED. (this has the virtue of simplicity, but the vice of boredom)
- The Spring/Autumn courts still exist, but they've been pushed out of the cycle. Some point in the past, the Summer and Winter courts grew enough in power to "close the loop" and exclude them. They're now in exile. They still exist in the Nevernever, but not in Faerie; their strength is a weak echo of what it used to be.
- The Spring/Autumn courts formerly existed, but have been razed. There's no crippling imbalance in nature because there is still the summer/winter transition. The cycle may be more of an oval than a circle now, but it all works out. Maybe you pass through the dark, decayed ruins of their courts when passing from Faerie to the rest of the Nevernever? (a dark interpretation, but certainly not out of character with the ruthlessness of the Faerie queens!)
- The courts still exist - as ghosts. You can find them, reliving their moments of glory, as pitiful shades of what they used to be... Ghosts in a ghost land, and angry over their exclusion from reality and clutching at the past. Their power still exists, but is - literally - a shadow of what it used to be. (This one is my favorite interpretation, and one I'm seriously considering working into the game I'm working on starting locally)
Excellent research and ideas. I am now firmly on the side of these courts having existed at some point, and possibly still existing, and now I have good ideas how to implement them if someone wants to use them.... I still say being a simple scion or knight is a bit of a weak idea, but at least now I have some good ideas how to work with them.
38
DFRPG / Re: Autumn and Spring Courts
« on: April 30, 2010, 07:33:28 PM »The Nevernever isn't cut in two, one half belonging to Mab and the other to Titiana. There are vast areas of it that they do not hold dominion. Plenty of space even for the multitude of things that aren't fae.
Yup, that is why I mentioned the wild stuff, and the other minor and major powers aside from the courts. It is also why I think that using Autumn or Spring courts for a character concept is unnecessarily complex (could add a lot of work figuring out how these courts interact with the dominant courts), and kind of a cop-out because it is so obvious. An imaginative player should be able to come up with something WAY better. Perhaps the dwarfs and giants of norse legend exist somewhere in Nevernever but have removed themselves from interaction with the mortal world. The player is a half-dwarf that happened across the rainbow bridge and crossed into earth and became fascinated with mortal technology. Now he runs a pawn/repair shop where he modifies modern and antique items into magical objects of great power.
Quote
If it's something the player wants to do there's no reason not to. Unlike some other games, this isn't one where the GM sits around detailing his universe and his campaign, and then sits the players down and says, "This is what you can be and this is what you can't." The players 'should' be helping shape the city and campaign from the very start.
I agree that players should help shape the campaign, especially right at the start. I think I made a mistake earlier in my wording. I said I wouldn't "allow" the autumn or spring courts if I was GM, but that isn't true. As a GM I would discourage players from introducing the autumn or spring courts because to me those things just don't fit into the dresdenverse as I see it after reading all the books. But I would not disallow it. If this happened though I would REALLY REALLY REALLY hope that the character concept was unique, imaginative, and inspiring to me as the GM. Then I would probably actually be glad they suggested it and would be totally on board.... But it better be a DANG good and imaginative character, not just the ridiculously obvious "Spring/Autumn Knight", or a fairly generic Scion of the Autumn Queen kind of thing.
39
DFRPG / Re: You won't like this character when he's angry.
« on: April 30, 2010, 05:33:09 PM »/Dons Cap of Comic Geekness
Sorry, but this is wrong. Bruce can make himself angry, *many* examples from TV and comics, and the Hulk can keep himself angry, see Planet Hulk and World War Hulk story lines.
/Removes Cap of Comic Geekness
I agree with removing the Speed and up the Strength as suggested by others.
You are right, it is wrong for Bruce. However, this is a Catch for a hulk-like characters ability to unleash his rage power, so it needs to be limiting in some way. If he can do it himself then it is a much weaker Catch, though that version could be used if all 3 catches were being used for a +2 modifier.
40
DFRPG / Re: Autumn and Spring Courts
« on: April 30, 2010, 05:23:13 PM »
I would guess that they have never existed, and never will in terms of the actual dresdenverse, but I also don't see a major problem with someone creating and using them in their version of the dresdenverse (though I wouldn't want to).
It is pretty standard in most faerie related stories to have the Seelie and Unseelie, with the Seelie being the "good" side, for certain values of good, and the Unseelie being the "evil" side, for certain values of evil. These sides are not always depicted as "Courts" and/or sometimes there are multiple separate courts that are on each side. Jim has just chosen to use two courts and call them Summer and Winter, Seelie and Unseelie, respectively, which is fine by me. Makes it way simpler.
Aside from these two sides (Seelie and Unseelie) there is rarely anything else other than straight up wild stuff and maybe some minor powers that are semi-independent, or very major powers that just kind of ignore the Seelie and Unseelie (because they don't care) and are ignored in return because it is not worth the effort of bothering with them. These are the sorts of powers, both the minor and major ones, that the protaganist might turn to for assistance if they are in trouble with the Seelie or Unseelie. However, in the process they often gain a major debt that complicates their lives for a long time to come.
So in most faerieverses anyone else that sets up a "court" is going to probably get crushed in a seconds by Seelie and Unseelie, mostly based on who gets there first. The only way to survive would be to be powerful enough that neither side can afford to destroy you on their own, but even then they will probably just band together to destroy the upstart, while also trying to gain advantage against each other.
So I personally do not like the idea of autumn and spring courts, and if I were GM I wouldn't allow the players to "create" them, and if I were a player I would argue against other players being allowed to create them. However, I would allow or suggest someone to be beholden to another power in the Nevernever, which they could make up themselves. This would give the player a LOT of options, while also being much simpler to manage and fit into the universe. A single powerful entity is a LOT less complicated than an entire court after all. What would be even better would be if they thought they were beholden to a major power, but it turns out it is fairly minor, just powerful enough not to be bothered, but weak enough that when the PC tries to use their "status" with this power to intimidate someone like the Summer Knight they get laughed out of the room... Suddenly that "deal" they struck doesn't seem so hot after all, but it is too late now!
It is pretty standard in most faerie related stories to have the Seelie and Unseelie, with the Seelie being the "good" side, for certain values of good, and the Unseelie being the "evil" side, for certain values of evil. These sides are not always depicted as "Courts" and/or sometimes there are multiple separate courts that are on each side. Jim has just chosen to use two courts and call them Summer and Winter, Seelie and Unseelie, respectively, which is fine by me. Makes it way simpler.
Aside from these two sides (Seelie and Unseelie) there is rarely anything else other than straight up wild stuff and maybe some minor powers that are semi-independent, or very major powers that just kind of ignore the Seelie and Unseelie (because they don't care) and are ignored in return because it is not worth the effort of bothering with them. These are the sorts of powers, both the minor and major ones, that the protaganist might turn to for assistance if they are in trouble with the Seelie or Unseelie. However, in the process they often gain a major debt that complicates their lives for a long time to come.
So in most faerieverses anyone else that sets up a "court" is going to probably get crushed in a seconds by Seelie and Unseelie, mostly based on who gets there first. The only way to survive would be to be powerful enough that neither side can afford to destroy you on their own, but even then they will probably just band together to destroy the upstart, while also trying to gain advantage against each other.
So I personally do not like the idea of autumn and spring courts, and if I were GM I wouldn't allow the players to "create" them, and if I were a player I would argue against other players being allowed to create them. However, I would allow or suggest someone to be beholden to another power in the Nevernever, which they could make up themselves. This would give the player a LOT of options, while also being much simpler to manage and fit into the universe. A single powerful entity is a LOT less complicated than an entire court after all. What would be even better would be if they thought they were beholden to a major power, but it turns out it is fairly minor, just powerful enough not to be bothered, but weak enough that when the PC tries to use their "status" with this power to intimidate someone like the Summer Knight they get laughed out of the room... Suddenly that "deal" they struck doesn't seem so hot after all, but it is too late now!
41
DFRPG / Re: You won't like this character when he's angry.
« on: April 30, 2010, 03:49:18 PM »
There should be two +1 catches from among these three, or maybe all three should combine into a total catch of +2, depending on player and GM decision...
The fact that he has to be very angry to enter rage form and he can't force that anger on himself, someone else has to do it.
The fact that he has only limited control in rage form and will attack anyone and anything that threatens or annoys him, including friends if he fails a conviction? roll. (Note that he will not KILL under normal circumstances when in rage form, but if his anger level is truly ridiculously high, and the enemy is still goading him, he might have to make a conviction check to avoid killing.)
The fact that he can't leave rage form until he is able to find peace, and associated with this the fact that he will sometimes run away from a fight to try and find peace if he has nothing invested in the fight... So if he is with his girlfriend and gets attacked he will fight to make her safe, then run away and find peace. If he is alone and has no idea why he is being attacked he might fight back, or he might just run away, or he might take one swing then run away (though if the enemy chases him he will try and fight back or slow them down still most likely).
Also his trouble is not Short Fuse. Banner worked hard at not getting angry and actually had a longer fuse than normal. Sadly though I am having trouble thinking up a replacement trouble, but I am sure there is something better.
The fact that he has to be very angry to enter rage form and he can't force that anger on himself, someone else has to do it.
The fact that he has only limited control in rage form and will attack anyone and anything that threatens or annoys him, including friends if he fails a conviction? roll. (Note that he will not KILL under normal circumstances when in rage form, but if his anger level is truly ridiculously high, and the enemy is still goading him, he might have to make a conviction check to avoid killing.)
The fact that he can't leave rage form until he is able to find peace, and associated with this the fact that he will sometimes run away from a fight to try and find peace if he has nothing invested in the fight... So if he is with his girlfriend and gets attacked he will fight to make her safe, then run away and find peace. If he is alone and has no idea why he is being attacked he might fight back, or he might just run away, or he might take one swing then run away (though if the enemy chases him he will try and fight back or slow them down still most likely).
Also his trouble is not Short Fuse. Banner worked hard at not getting angry and actually had a longer fuse than normal. Sadly though I am having trouble thinking up a replacement trouble, but I am sure there is something better.
42
DFRPG / Re: Learning: First Impression
« on: April 30, 2010, 02:54:04 AM »
Well, the books says this:
To me the use of the word "failing" implies that you can't "lose" the roll with someone else as the "winner". Otherwise it would just say "losing that roll cannot give...". So to me this means option 2 and 3 are right out since there is a winner and loser in that scenario. I would say 5 is out for the reason you describe as well.
So that leaves 1 and 4, and I would suggest 1 should be treated like 4, with the NPC making an impression as well.
So the only question is whether it is a simple action with the others social defense as the difficulty, or a contest with the other person rolling their social defense against the "attackers" currently active first-impression skill.
To me 4 makes the most sense if the other person is also actively trying to impress, while 1 makes more sense if they are not (basically those trying to make a first impression are in the right head-space to actively resist others first impressions while those who are not trying to impress are caught off guard, so they don't actively resist).
So basically if PC is trying to impress and NPC is not then the PC rolls a simple action against the NPCs Presence and applies an aspect based on this. Then the NPC rolls a contested action against he PCs active skill using his Presence (default first impression skill). If both were active then both would be contested rolls against the others active skill, and if both were not trying to impress then both would be simple rolls of presence against a difficulty of the other persons presence.
There is one other situation, when only one person is able to receive a first impression, but what to roll there is the same as above, just pointing out that can happen (It is hard to give a first impression to the PI that has been secretly watching you for the last week, but he can impress you).
Quote
Page 155: Rapport Stunts: Best Foot Forward: People just like you, especially when you’re deliberately trying to make a good first impression (page 138). You gain a +1 on your roll to make a good first impression, and failing that roll cannot give you a negative temporary aspect or make the situation worse.
To me the use of the word "failing" implies that you can't "lose" the roll with someone else as the "winner". Otherwise it would just say "losing that roll cannot give...". So to me this means option 2 and 3 are right out since there is a winner and loser in that scenario. I would say 5 is out for the reason you describe as well.
So that leaves 1 and 4, and I would suggest 1 should be treated like 4, with the NPC making an impression as well.
So the only question is whether it is a simple action with the others social defense as the difficulty, or a contest with the other person rolling their social defense against the "attackers" currently active first-impression skill.
To me 4 makes the most sense if the other person is also actively trying to impress, while 1 makes more sense if they are not (basically those trying to make a first impression are in the right head-space to actively resist others first impressions while those who are not trying to impress are caught off guard, so they don't actively resist).
So basically if PC is trying to impress and NPC is not then the PC rolls a simple action against the NPCs Presence and applies an aspect based on this. Then the NPC rolls a contested action against he PCs active skill using his Presence (default first impression skill). If both were active then both would be contested rolls against the others active skill, and if both were not trying to impress then both would be simple rolls of presence against a difficulty of the other persons presence.
There is one other situation, when only one person is able to receive a first impression, but what to roll there is the same as above, just pointing out that can happen (It is hard to give a first impression to the PI that has been secretly watching you for the last week, but he can impress you).
43
DFRPG / Re: Learning: Don't Leave!
« on: April 30, 2010, 02:00:44 AM »Luminos gave me a solid answer (thanks!) that helped me with the part I was grappling with: Rolling dice to walk away feels weird.
I can resolve that much more easily. This is a game of storytelling, in which PCs and NPCs alike can actually CONTROL the actions of others at times. For instance, player A can COMPEL the PC of player B simply by using an appropriate aspect and a fate point. So I, as a PLAYER can control YOU as a player. After that, the fact that I can potentially control an NPC with a dice roll is pretty minor by comparison. That is all you need to understand and accept to get around this issue you were grappling with.
As to Luminos process vs. mine, mine is WAY simpler to use and it is the only way for a solo PC to actually accomplish anything if the NPC is 100% determined to leave. "Block" is an unnecessary and potentially useless complication to the process.
Contest process: PC declares he is attempting to stop the person from leaving by using his Presence to order the person to stay. GM rolls presence for NPC to ignore the command. If NPC wins NPC leaves. If neither wins, then you do it again, or get some other split result. If PC wins then NPC stays for Shift # of exchanges. If the PC only gets 1 shift then he has to keep "blocking" until he gets more shifts, but if/when he gets 2 or more he then has time to take other actions before having to "block" again.
Block process: PC declares he is attempting a social block maneuver to stop the person from leaving by using his Presence to order the person to stay. The PC rolls to determine the block strength. On the NPCs turn the NPC then rolls presence to shrug off the block. If NPC wins NPC leaves.... Up to this point it is effectively exactly the same as the contest process, but now it gets interesting.... If NPC doesn't break the block then he has to stay until the PCs next turn is up. However, the PC is in the same position now as he was a second ago. He has to refresh the block or the NPC walks his very next turn, and if he doesn't refresh it then whatever action he is about to take he could have taken last turn instead of blocking, making the block a complete waste of time. So unless there is a second PC present the PC can never gain anything from this process unless the NPC chooses not to try to break the block anymore for some reason.
44
DFRPG / Re: Learning: Don't Leave!
« on: April 29, 2010, 11:12:29 PM »
I think we actually have too little information to answer this in detail. There are tons of ways to resolve it based on the information given, and dice don't even need to be involved for many of them.
The player could just say he asks the person to stop, and you could RP the guy looking back and either stopping or going depending on the nature of the PC (likely stopping for Michael or Thomas, hoofing it for Molly or Harry).
If the NPC has a partial inclination to stop anyway then it won't even matter what the player does, almost anything will keep him from leaving.
If dice need to be involved you don't need have to think of it as block. The exchange can be thought of as a contest instead. They are practically the same thing in this situation, and since its not like it is actual combat the simpler one is just that, simpler:
If the PC doesn't get physical you could do a contest of Intimidation (threaten him to stop), Presence (order him to stop), or Rapport (beg him to stop) vs. Empathy or Discipline. The NPC could even use Conviction if he is leaving for a reason that is extremely important to him. e.g. Commander Vimes needing to get home in time to read his sons favorite bedtime story exactly at 6pm sharp (If you don't get this reference, shame on you, everyone should read Terry Pratchett).
If the PC does get physical then a contest still works. Might (chest bump), Athletics (get in his way and stay in his way, but without pushing backwards) or Fists (hold in place or block with arms) vs. Athletics, Fists, or Might depending on the NPCs response. For instance he could try to dodge around a chest bump (athletics) or shove an athletics attempt to the side (fists).
No matter which option is chosen, just roll a contest and see who wins. If the PC wins the guy stays for a number of exchanges equal to the shift, if the NPC wins then he gets away. If there is a tie the NPC gets away but the PC gains some minor bit of information about him that will help track him down later, like maybe a matchbook from a bar falls out of the NPCs pocket as he dodges around the PC.
There is no need to make this more complex than it really is.
The player could just say he asks the person to stop, and you could RP the guy looking back and either stopping or going depending on the nature of the PC (likely stopping for Michael or Thomas, hoofing it for Molly or Harry).
If the NPC has a partial inclination to stop anyway then it won't even matter what the player does, almost anything will keep him from leaving.
If dice need to be involved you don't need have to think of it as block. The exchange can be thought of as a contest instead. They are practically the same thing in this situation, and since its not like it is actual combat the simpler one is just that, simpler:
If the PC doesn't get physical you could do a contest of Intimidation (threaten him to stop), Presence (order him to stop), or Rapport (beg him to stop) vs. Empathy or Discipline. The NPC could even use Conviction if he is leaving for a reason that is extremely important to him. e.g. Commander Vimes needing to get home in time to read his sons favorite bedtime story exactly at 6pm sharp (If you don't get this reference, shame on you, everyone should read Terry Pratchett).
If the PC does get physical then a contest still works. Might (chest bump), Athletics (get in his way and stay in his way, but without pushing backwards) or Fists (hold in place or block with arms) vs. Athletics, Fists, or Might depending on the NPCs response. For instance he could try to dodge around a chest bump (athletics) or shove an athletics attempt to the side (fists).
No matter which option is chosen, just roll a contest and see who wins. If the PC wins the guy stays for a number of exchanges equal to the shift, if the NPC wins then he gets away. If there is a tie the NPC gets away but the PC gains some minor bit of information about him that will help track him down later, like maybe a matchbook from a bar falls out of the NPCs pocket as he dodges around the PC.
There is no need to make this more complex than it really is.
45
DFRPG / Re: Optional dice rolling system for those without Fudge Dice
« on: April 29, 2010, 04:49:39 PM »
Yeah, I need to go back to Stats class!