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 - Tallyrand

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
1
DFRPG / Re: Wizards and technology
« on: April 02, 2014, 09:49:56 PM »
I would say if you want to make a character who is working on preventing accidental hexing you should do two things.  First is make sure that your GM throws out accidental hexes regularly, being the 'guy in control' doesn't matter if it doesn't cause a problem for anyone else.  Then you should work with your GM to allow your character to set aspects on himself to prevent it.  Spend a little time before a scene and use appropriate skills to place aspects that you can Tag to avoid an accidental hex.  You could use Discipline to create "Focused and Under Control"; Lore for "Dissipated Magical Energies"; or Craft for "13 Point Aberrant Energy Disruptor". 

2
DFRPG / Re: Credit Card Fraud - A Stunt?
« on: April 12, 2013, 11:12:12 PM »
Quote from: Tedronai on April 12, 2013, 07:08:52 PM
They might have meant 'Burglary'.

They did, it's been a while since I've actually cracked the book, sorry.  I did make a character with a similar idea mechanically that I think I called Gas Station Withdrawal which allowed him to use Burglary as resources if he had a few hours notice.l

3
DFRPG / Re: Credit Card Fraud - A Stunt?
« on: April 12, 2013, 10:53:21 AM »
Personally I would make this a stunt for Criminal or Academics rather than deceit, but yeah using it with Deception if your group approves is completely legit (so to speak).

4
DFRPG / Re: Thomas in Small Favor
« on: June 07, 2012, 11:28:19 AM »
It's also worth noting that the stats in the book seem to be where the characters are at the beginning of Storm Front (Harry's explicitly, and everyone else seem to be on a scale with him) so as of Small Favor he has 5 more refresh and 9 more skill points that aren't listed.  Also don't forget the ability to switch around skills once a sessionish, so it's reasonable to assume that he prepared a bit before going and bumped up his might.

5
DFRPG / Re: Template Balance
« on: May 08, 2012, 02:54:21 AM »
Quote from: Sanctaphrax on May 08, 2012, 02:20:33 AM
What skills can Evocation replace? It's good for attacks and for some trappings of Might, but that's about it.

It can replace any skill if you would use it for a maneuver, any attack still, it can be your primary defense and it can with some creativity do the work of a lot of social skills.

Quote
As for Thaumaturgy, that's not as broad as you present it as. What you can do with Thaumaturgy and what it takes is largely dependent on GM fiat. Would you let someone use Thaumaturgy to win an argument? To own an airplane? It's up to you. And a teen-level ritual is kind of a big deal, it's not something that you're supposed to toss out casually.

Even with a strict GM it can easily be used for Investigation, any sort of information gathering skill use, any type of maneuver, and with sufficient forethought even let you win an argument.  Of course GM fiat can say no to almost any of these, but it can also say no to anything else.

Quote
Magic is prominent in the setting =/= wizards are the game's protagonists and power players. It's an undeniable fact that Evil Hat intentionally erred on the side of power for wizards, but it seems strange to me that people think they were meant to be the best things in the game.

Maybe it's residual expectations from other RPGs...in D&D, non-casters kinda suck by comparison with full casters. And in some White Wolf games, mortals are by design quite pathetic.

I think that the argument really comes down not to that wizards are meant to be the protaganists (we'd have to ask them about that) but that they are the most powerful.  You seem to agree since the two examples you site are two of the classic examples of unbalanced games.  In D&D (3.5 and before) there was a balance logic that low level wizards suck and high level wizards are gods.  And in White Wolf mortals aren't intended to be balanced with Mages.

6
DFRPG / Re: Something that came up in a game session
« on: May 07, 2012, 11:19:35 AM »
I agree, of course, with everyone here's advise to discuss what 'reasonable' means at your table.  As a suggestion, if you're looking for a hard line, I know some people on the boards have adopted a Weapon limit on reasonable.  What applies at tables ranges, I personally put it at anything Weapon 4 or higher has the potential to kill the target even if the wizard didn't intend it to.  I like going to a hard number because then the players know before taking the action what the risks are.

The problem that I have with using compels exclusively for this is that it is generally what I would consider an unfair compel.  Wizards often sit at 1 refresh (not always, but often) so if compelling for Law Breaker comes up there can only be 2 possible results.  One, the has a fate and has to decide whether he wants to continue playing the character, or two he doesn't have a fate and with a single compel you kill his character, probably upsetting him.  There are many people on the board who advocate this method, so far as I know their games have not blown up as a result, but for me avoiding those potentially game ruining situations is best.

7
DFRPG / Re: Template Balance
« on: May 05, 2012, 10:41:41 AM »
Quote from: CottbusFiles on May 05, 2012, 06:35:50 AM
Let's say a supmerged mortal starts with a 5 gun skill and carries arround a weapon 3 assault rifle. He has 12 Fatepoints to play with. Let's say he has 2 appropriate aspects. That's a +4. There are still 10 Fatepoints he can invest in rerolls/+1 so he can attack with a +18 or something. First round. He could go with +17 and compel the wizard to not have his defense up.

Case rested.

Right, but then of course the wizard win initiative, makes an easy hex, and then eats the mortal for breakfast.  Or the Wizard tags CRATES or LOT FULL OF CARS or something similar to say the attack misses completely.  Or the Wizard spends a fate to invoke his high concept to have the gun auto hexed.  Or......

That being said, I'm cool with Wizards being 'better' than the other templates, and I think that if it is a problem in your game it is better solved narratively than with a mechanics change.

8
DFRPG / Re: Keeping Players in the Dark
« on: April 26, 2012, 08:04:30 PM »
One thing that I would STRONGLY recommend is, if one of the characters at your table prides himself on reading people DO NOT DO THIS.  If you just arbitrarily set this NPCs ability to lie at a little higher than the PCs ability to detect it (again, if this is where the PC thinks he's awesome) you are effectively invalidating that character.

That being said, the best way to do this (although very difficult to pull off) in bring in another player to the game.  If you have a friend who can make a couple of Guest Star spots but isn't interested in joining the game long term ask him if he's willing to play the mole.  If you insert an NPC into the group they will be suspicious and likely not terrilby surprised if he turns no matter how on the level he seems to be.  It has nothing to do with how you run it, it's just how players have been trained to react.  It's like when you see Willem Defoe in a movie, you're always a little surprised if he turns out not to be evil.

9
DFRPG / Re: The DF verses the DFRPG
« on: April 26, 2012, 07:53:48 PM »
Quote from: Viatos on April 26, 2012, 07:36:05 PM
Both answers to that poll are equivalent. Neither contradicts the other. It is a game using the Dresdenverse as a setting, and inspired by the works of Jim Butcher.

I think it's pretty clear that the intent of the poll is 'no less than'.  For example, if you're watching The Taming of the Shrew you're watching Shakespeare's play, if you're watching 10 Things I Hate About You you're watching something that is inspired by Shakespeare's play.

That beings said this is a tough question for me to answer.  Personal I think that limits inspire creativity so I try to keep things very strictly in Jim's universe when thinking about the game and how the rules apply.  On the other hand I highly encourage things that make sense in the Dresdenverse but aren't specifically laid out (like many people use the Autumn and Spring courts).  I feel like a middle option of some sort would better represent my view but when in doubt I stick with cannon.

10
DFRPG / Re: An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent
« on: April 20, 2012, 10:58:09 PM »
Quote from: ways and means on April 20, 2012, 09:37:22 PM
Fred has pretty much stated that the pure mortal bonus was designed for game balance as powers> stunts. So If someone decides not to take powers they should get the bonus from a game balance perspective.

And that is a perfectly valid opinion, the only argument here is that is isn't RAW and it isn't an appropriate choice for all tables.  I personally think that if I had two players, one playing Murphy and one playing an Untrained White Counsel Level Talent and I allowed them both to gain the +2 Pure Mortal bonus I would be doing Murphy's player a disservice.  Not only is she staying true to RAW while the other player is not, the other player's Fate Chips are more versatile than Murphy's.

11
DFRPG / Re: An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent
« on: April 20, 2012, 10:51:35 AM »
Quote from: Tedronai on April 20, 2012, 04:45:09 AM
And if you instead had a player come to you and say, 'I would like to play this really interesting character that I've worked out, but I don't want to be overly punished for it mechanically, do you think we can come up with a way to work around the rules to keep the game satisfying?  I only ask because I get kind of bummed out when the story says I'm this awesomely skilled exemplar of mostly-mortal kind, and yet end up failing at everything I do because of some technicality that says I have to suck, especially in comparison to the other player's characters...'
What would you say then?
'Screw game balance and player satisfaction'?

Well, I think first I'd say that you really should take a look at the rule book, having two less stunts or two less free refresh really isn't going to make that big a difference on your characters effectiveness.  Also, I think you're characters background is awesome, and I promise I'm going to make sure it pays off in the story.  But yeah, +2 Refresh comes from being Pure Mortal, not from not having powers, so if that's not what you're looking for then you may want to re-jigger your character.

Of course by your logic, if I come into your game and say, "Hey, I've got this great character concept that I love.  His name is Steve and he's an 80 Foot Fire-breathing dinosaur, I'll buy all the large size stuff and all the powers appropriate.  But here's the awesome thing, he also runs the local coffee shop. ... Oh, no, he's always an 80 food monster, the locals call him tiny because they think it's a funny nick name for such a big monster."  That would be cool with you right?  Because I mean you don't want to limit at all the types of characters you allow so long as they're in RAW.

12
DFRPG / Re: An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent
« on: April 20, 2012, 02:04:22 AM »
Quote from: sinker on April 19, 2012, 08:28:04 PM
Ok, I guess that's just a place where we differ.

I'd rather encourage the player to be creative and invested in the world (setting be damned), and I don't see the potential for abuse because in the end an invoke is an invoke, regardless of the aspect.

I've been following the conversation for a while and this is a point I'd like to address briefly.  If you want to say 'setting be damned' then by all means go for it.  It's your table,  your game, your world.  But if you want to play a Dresden Files game, one set in the universe of the stories and the rules, then part of being invested in the world is accepting that there is a cost to being a supernatural thing.  If one of my players (I actually don't have a game at the moment but hypothetically) said "I'm willing to give up the +2 refresh because I want to be directly descended from Zeus but I'm not going to take any powers" I would be thrilled because that guy is buying into the setting and saying 'My personal power be damned".   And you know what, I would let him get away with murder (metaphorically) with that aspect because of it.

The choice of whether to allow the +2 Pure Mortal/No Powers bonus IS NOT the choice of limiting creativity or investment.  It's simply the choice of do I want this game to reinforce the values of the Dresden setting or do I want to take it my own direction.  I choose the former because I believe that limitations enhance creativity and investment, not limit it.

13
DFRPG / Re: Scion of Tesla
« on: April 14, 2012, 08:25:39 PM »
Personally if I was going for something like that I would do it in one of two ways.  One thought is I would use sponsored magic, for my personal story flavor I would say that I have the same sponsor Tesla did but using Tesla as your sponsor works too.  Another option would be to talk to the players at your table an take a +0 Power (I'd be tempted to call it Merlinian Magic) which would in effect invert the Tech Hexing, make it so simple machines around you are subject to the murphyonic effect while the high tech would generally be fine.

14
DFRPG / Re: Confused by Item of Power
« on: April 11, 2012, 09:12:07 PM »
So far as the cost you only get the item discount once, no matter how many items you have, so the Eye is -3, the Sword I would say is -4 and you get a one time discount of +2 for a total of -5.

So far as the Cloak of Shadows and Inhuman Agility powers it just comes down to 'Can you character do these things without the sword or the eye?'

If you have an item of power, a good GM will for at least one story (and no more than once every few stories) force your character to act without those items.  What powers do you still want to have when those situations come up?

15
DFRPG / Re: An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent
« on: March 31, 2012, 10:41:45 AM »
Quote from: sinker on March 31, 2012, 05:21:54 AM
I think what bugs me about all of this, is that mechanically this theoretical "Innate Wizard" isn't any different from a pure mortal. They can't cast spells, they don't have permanent bonuses (or even bonuses that last a scene), and they can't do anything that a mortal couldn't (from a mechanical perspective). However because they have a thematic difference you are making things harder for them. Because they have decided to have a magic bent instead of a skilled one. If the player chooses to describe that action in one way rather than another then your response as a GM should be in the description. As long as they are using the same mechanics as everyone else you shouldn't be arbitrarily slapping them with mechanical penalties. To take the thematics out of question, this would be like having two players choose different routes to get to the same place (for example a car and a train) and yet choosing to make one character late for no reason, or having two players decide to solve a problem in two different (equally valid) ways, and giving one character a penalty for it. That really bugs me.

I think that there is a mechanical difference, albeit a small one.  Specifiically the limitation on invoking aspects that the invocation must be reasonable.  Saying that a character is a pyromaniac it is reasonable that they would know tricks to make fire in unusual circumstances or that they have matches on them.  What isn't reasonable though is saying that they can conjure fire from thin air or at a distance, but of these are well within the realm of a pyromancer. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14