When I was reading Blood Rites, Harry was afraid to cast his spell in the basement of the homeless shelter because without his Blasting Rod, he had too little control to make sure his magic behaved as he wanted it to. He consistently seems to be afraid to use his magic without his blasting rod, which in the novels is a great plot device.

In the game, the Blasting Rod does not provide such a staggering mechanical benefit that his magic is so crazy without it. Now, in the spirit of assuming that the game could simulate the novels, is this an example of Harry's Aspects being compelled (can't cast recklessly because you might hurt people), or just something lost in translation between books and games?

Something else to add, Mortal Stunts should not be as "sticky" as supernatural Powers are. Powers usually reflect some fundamental part of your nature, and are hard to come by. Stunts usually represent training or proclivities which can be changed over time.

I agree, and that was my first impression. It was when I looked through the rules that I noticed there were no means to remove Stunts, but there was also no discussion as to why Stunts persisted more than Powers did.

Here's the situation, to put into context the question. My character in the game (which we are running troupe style) is a battered, abused and bitchy street goth with Ghost Speaker Power. She 4 Stunts as well, most of them reflecting her sarcastic attitude and her streetwise vibe.

Her Trouble is that a faerie lady has put a very potent curse on her - she is rapidly aging backwards, diminishing from her twenties into her teens, and at current writing six years old in body. This is part of the character's natural progression - she is learning to trust, to love and forgive and forget by being forced to be helpless and be helped. It's all good drama.

What our group has discussed is that this character, when she bounces (there's a plot planned for this), will end up with the potential to become a Wizard. Already the ghost of a wizard has taught her Channelling, which is planned to slowly overtake her Ghost Speaker power, and eventually she will become a full Wizard (if she makes the right choices). But she's left with these 4 Stunts which are making less and less sense. To make the conversation topical, the four Stunts are Hairpin Maestro, Resilient Self-Image, Takes One to Know One, and Infuriate.

I want to remove some or all of these Stunts. But according to the system, you can only swap Stunts. Is there no means to evolve a character such to remove Stunts as the character progresses? We are, of course, totally willing to just ignore the system to suit our game. But for the purposes of interest, is it possible to carve Stunts back for Refresh and / or Powers?

I was looking in the Book section of the main forum, and saw a thread asking about people who may have discovered the books through the TV show. I myself picked up the Dresden Files RPG because I thought it looked like an interesting game using a character intensive system. I knew not one shred about the books, or even that there was a book series. Never heard of it.

I'm slowly working my way through the books (I'm a fast reader but have way too little time), and have been playing the game for 4 months now and am still only on Summer Knight. So I'm curious - has anyone else come to the books through the game?

I loved that miniseries, it had such potential to go onwards. I've brought The Key into a Mage: The Awakening game as well, but thinking of it, Dresden RPG has everything you need to do it. I'd be interested in seeing them all statted up in a small pdf or something if you felt so inspired... it would be a fun resources to refer to.

On a related note, it would be a lot of fun to think of Harry or any other kind of play group trying to deal with the Objects in the actual Dresdenverse. I'm not sure what they would be - the Lost Room was never adequately explained. Maybe an unnatural portal into the Nevernever that broke reality around every one of the Objects?

I do think, if a person were to base a game off the inclusion of The One Ring (like some fun attempt to run through the plot and see how it would go with different characters, or just the same characters but their own choices), you would need to have certain things thought out. Like how the Ring causes Stress (which it clearly does at points, as Frodo becomes worn by carrying the burdern of the Ring), and how the invisibility functions, etc.

But as for the nitty gritty? Hell, even Elrond and Gandalf didn't understand how the One Ring functioned. It would be, in a similar vein, to statting up Excalibur if you planned on using it as a central theme for the story (like, for example, in the movie Excalibur). It should have some tangible stats, for sure, but a lot of the more "plottish" stuff should be left to... well, the plot.

I am really losing my respect for the term "plot device". Here's why:

....That's not a rhetorical question. I'm really asking.

PS: I don't deny that big things are usually harder to stat than little ones. Aspects are a very crude way to model specific effects. So if you want to write up gods, you better write some god powers first. And that's not easy. (Which is why I haven't written Mab stats yet.) But it is possible. (Which is why I probably will write Mab stats one of these days.)

I don't disagree. Anything can be statted up. But some things are so much bigger than the characters, that Stats are beyond... pointless. Take, in this example, Sauron and any of the other greatest Maia. He's a vertiable God, but he could be taken down by veritable demi-gods as well. You could stat him, but in the scope of most stories, there's no need. In fact, giving him Stats leads to discussion (typically) of just what nasty combinations of spells that could be used to destroy Sauron from the armchair in Bag End.

The One Ring is right at the threshold - it was so evil and dangerous, the wisest were terrified to touch it. How do you stat that without making it instantly toxic to Frodo? That is the difference between the Sword of Michael, or a Denarian Coin, and the One Ring. Scope. To each their own, of course, but One Ring writeups that don't, in fact, do that artifact justice are doing a disservice to the narrative of their source story.

I disagree with the build entirely.

For one, the power of the One Ring is fantastic. It's enough to change the course of a war. All of the Great Rings give the bearer of that Ring power, power over a part of Middle Earth. The three Elven Rings were used in The Lord of the Rings with such effect ;

Nenya (the ring Galadriel bore) kept Lothlorien timeless and a paradise of the Elder Days in Middle Earth. There was nothing about the Elves in Lorien that kept the Mallorn trees growing and that sense of timelessness, that ward from the troubles of Middle Earth. Lorien was nestled between the hordes of Goblins in the Misty Mountains, in their fastness in Moria, and Dol Guldur, the former seat of Sauron's power in the Third Age, crawling with Orcs and the Nazgul. But it came at a cost. The Elves of Lorien were so insular, so cut off from their kin, that Legolas had never been there, that they viewed all outsiders with suspicion. They had forgotten the light in other lands, even viewing Fangorn to the south as "perilous" (and Treebeard, later, comments that Lothlorien had diminished, that it was falling even while being timeless).

Vilya, the ring Elrond bore, seemed to be used to keep Imladris secret and safe. It is also possible it gave him the extra wisdom of healing he seemed to posses unlike any other in Middle Earth (like removing a tiny fragment of the Witch King's blade from near Frodo's heart).

Narya, the ring Gandalf bore, seemed capable of stirring hearts, of lighting fires in men's hearts and driving them on to do the unthinkable, kindling courage. It was also the ring of Fire, and Gandalf's spells of fire were the most showy and potent seeming of all the wizard's magic (in the books, Saruman did not hurl fireballs).

Each of the Elven Rings, and all of the other Great Rings, were imbued with the power of command and authority over the races they were made to serve. This was not, as is appropriate with Tolkien, a form of mind control these Rings were meant to achieve. They were symbols of authority, beacons to their people. The Rings were crowns in a physical sense, and in a spiritual sense. The bearer of one of the Nine Rings was a King - they were given to Kings, and Kings would bear them. To the bearer, that Kingliness was bestowed. Elrond was the Chief of his tribe of Elves in Imladris (Rivendell). Seeing something here? The Rings gave an Aspect. An Aspect that no one else could possess without that Ring. Galadriel was the Lady of Light, not because she had Nenya. She and Nenya were the same person, in essence - Nenya belonged on the finger of the Lady of Light, and the Lady of Light was made greater by wearing Nenya.

Each one of these rings could do fantastic things in Middle Earth. They were powerless outside of Middle Earth (from Galadriel's dialogue to Frodo). The One Ring was made by Sauron after he learned the making of Rings from the Elf Smith Celibrimbor (a descendant of no less than Fëanor himself). He sought to control all the Rings that had been made, and perhaps any further Great Rings that existed afterwards (which the Elven Smiths were wise enough not to produce any more of). The Dwarven Rings, the Nine, were all made with the aid of Sauron, while the Three had not been, but by pouring the majority of his spirit into the One Ring, Sauron gave it enough power to act as a Ruling Ring. It would allow him to control the minds of any who bore those Rings. It would remove, in the end, the last few bright hopes for goodness that remained in Middle Earth (the kingdoms of Elves who had seen the light of the Valinor), and Sauron would be uncontested in Middle Earth. The One Ring, unlike all of the other, usurped the chain of partnership between bearer and Ring. It made the bearer of the One Ring the Master, the one who rules without the right to do so. Look how he made it. He stole the secrets through trickery and deception. He made the One Ring without the consent or wishes of any of the other Ring bearers, and he made it by subverting the natural laws of Middle Earth, pouring all his might into it to make it so. Sauron cheated and abused himself and the world to make the One Ring.

On the hand of any mortal, the One Ring would make him or her invisible to human sight, partially drawing them into the spirit world. It gave them small amounts of mastery over others, according to their stature. Frodo was already a wealthy and dignified man by Hobbit standards (he didn't work, he was that rich, and he was noble in spirit in the way Tolkien wrote about noble spirits). Aragorn / Strider, who had the right to claim the throne of Gondor and Arnor, would have been capable of much, much more with the One Ring. Even Boromir was the son of the Steward of Gondor, the Captain of the armies of Gondor - his power of command would have been great. Frodo managed to bind Gollum into service (of the nature of service Gollum could render - treacherous and loathsome), not only because Gollum had been a Ring-bearer, but because Frodo had the power of that command upon him. The Ring does not prolong life - it delays death. It prevents the bearer from gaining more life from the world, from growing and being part of that flow, hence the lack of aging. Long periods of this do awful things to a mortal (see Gollum, who Bilbo clearly didn't even recognize as a Hobbit).

It bestows, as all of the Great Rings do, an Aspect upon the bearer - THE BEARER OF THE ONE RING. And that Aspect can be compelled to the nature of that Aspect. Galadriel has the Aspect, THE BEARER OF NENYA, which the GM could compel to make her assume matters relating to the Elven tribes, to remain staid and constant when change would be wiser. Remember, she suspected Saruman, but did not speak up when matters made him head of the White Council over Gandalf, whom she favoured. When Frodo wants to put on the One Ring in the presence of the Nazgul, the Ring isn't "telling" him to. There's no voice in the Ring. The One Ring tempts the bearer using the bearer's own dark deeds and thoughts. This is why Gollum fell so easily to the Ring, and why Frodo (Frodo being a very, very noble spirit) didn't until the very end.

There's a lot more to it, but there you have it. The One Ring is better served, as are most of the Rings, as plot devices in that context than magical trinkets. They are more "parts of the world smote into Rings" than "bits of magic guided to a purpose".