*sigh*. If it's one rpg canard that wears down the soul, it's the idea that players have to take a backseat to NPCs. Not PCs -- the players themselves.

There is no aspect of the setting -- none -- that does not exist for the players' entertainment. And that includes the GM -- they're all social equals. As such, if the group is made happy by the given power level of a game object, even though it may rival or surpass some NPC, then that object is an inherent good. Demanding that the group supress their preference is no different than persons in real life becoming desperately concerned that a stranger, in the privacy of that stranger's home, may be doing something that the said persons don't approve of.


This is made more clear by the fact that the setting doesn't even implicitly, not even reaching explictly, trump the power level of the artifact at issue. Who's to say that the only thing that the swords do is what they've been seen to do? Who's to say that the swords' power levels and abilities aren't affected by their weilder? Those swords could be more powerful than what's been seen. Or they could be a lens for the true power of their weilder and contain little magic in and of themselves. The swords' uniqueness is also unconfirmed, and the virtue of said uniqueness is a totally fact-free matter of opinion: it is purely a matter of taste. (It would be fun for some if powerful artifacts, regardless of the source, followed similar patterns, for example.) This world background's metaphysics have been staggeringly unexplained. And since the author of said background's name is up above our text box in titanic 72-point type, we can safely conclude that that was intended as a design feature. Indeed, the rpg's vagueness on basic aspects of magic isn't always a feature -- it's often a flaw for some -- which is why we're here.

If someone sits down and plays the Dresden Files rpg and decides that her PC servant of Vishnu has more cosmic juju in her gear than anyone elses toys have in the universe and her group loves the concept, not only are they not "wrong,"* they're playing a roleplaying game right.

*The worst they could be is directly contradicting canon, and that's clearly not going to be the case until Butcher's next rumored book "Christ Rulz, Vishnu Drulz" hits the shelves. I find that rumor highly dubious.

It’s an example how magic works in the Dresdenverse.  All the magic in the game is based around how it works in the books.

That doesn’t make it relevant. You missed the point I made above. It’s irrelevant because it isn’t a specific example of the phenomenon at hand. There are many ways to reach love facilitated by magic; that the book points out one way it cannot work (and implies/describes several other ways it cannot work) is irrelevant. There are many way to fail at machine-powered flight; the Wright brothers came up many, then found one that worked.

These aren’t assumptions – if you’ve read the short story you will see that he spent days investigating before getting away.

And how does this negate the assumptions? Dresden is still a thaumaturgist of finite ability. The Wright brothers, again, took quite some time -- and probably had less pressure to succeed.

And, um, there’s the fact that wizards don’t like to share knowledge. That’s a pretty big deal here when it comes to personal limitations. If you have the answer to a vexing problem, it may be in your best interests to convince the world that there is no answer. . .

He has Bob.  Bob is unrivalled.   When asked the right question Bob has the answer

So Bob > the Merlin? More assumptions. Dresden always knows the right answer to ask? More assumptions. Wait, no, that Bob thing isn’t an assumption -- it’s incorrect. Bob is old, and wise, and extremely experienced, but that doesn’t make him perfect or near-perfect. By this logic, there should be vampires running around that could trump him.

If Bob were truly unrivaled and always provided the right answer, the plots of the stories wouldn’t advance past “Bob tells Dresden exactly what to do.” Bob is not the omniscient being you’re implying he is.

We differ here.  The designer has tried to make the game as close to the books as possible.  He has also seen “the outline” – which plans out the entire 22 books and trilogy.

Um, no, this is wrong. I was making reference to some of the designer’s own comments. The design is deliberately limited in scope to keep Mr. Butcher from having to feel limited by the RPG -- the designer mentioned as much someplace previously.

His creativity is why he lives when he fights out of his weight class.  He routinely survives things that he label’s heavy weights. . .

This does not make Dresden unrivaled in creativity. It merely makes him creative. By your logic, Picasso could have spoken on music with complete authority, and Philip Glass can tell you everything you need to know about sculpting.

You’re forgetting that he has Bob – a source of near infinite knowledge.

Not forgotten -- and, as previously mentioned, not near-infinte.

You feel that True Love is can easy be used as a weapon and thus should be worth more.

Wait, what? You completely mischaracterize my position. I pointed out above that love cannot be easily used as a weapon, even though it can be engineered and arranged through magical and mundane means. Actually, I feel silly repeating myself here -- I know I wrote as much above and have just reviewed the earlier statements. I even say that the catch is worth only +0 and imply that +1 is an overcharitable longshot. Did you even read the section you quoted? How can you come to the conclusion that I said that true love is “easily” used as a weapon if I grant the anthrophage no point reduction? This evaluation of my position is both logically incoherent and contrary to my statements. With respect, are you reading what I wrote or deciding to argue against an argument you have created?

I’ve tried to cite the sources as evidence, you disagree that the books should be cited.

No, I’ve disagreed with the assumption -- completely unfounded and only once (in one sentence above) even mentioned by yourself -- that the citations you’ve mentioned are relevant. I do recognize that the books are, of course, important.

Why don’t we agree that in your game True Love can be used as a weapon and thus should be worth a bit more?

Ah, now here we have an honest and clear disagreement. My position is that though love can be “weaponized,” the effort to engineer it would be comparable to, and less effective than, hiring a guy named Guido to snipe the pale little maggot.* If someone made a human that was very tough and fast in a game I’m running then pointed out that “concentrated hydrochloric acid, available at chemical supply stores, will stop him in his tracks!” I’d laugh and still deny him a point break. Humans are absolutely surrounded by toxic and hostile substances; I don’t think the Catch of the WCV really makes them much more vulnerable than humans in the main.

If this were a much sharper point-buy system, instead of FATE, you’re d@mn skippy I’d grant that points. But a refresh is a big, big stack of stats -- too big for this particular characteristic.

Change systems and we’d be in agreement: the WCV disadvantage is worth points.

In FATE? Not so much.

If you want those points and I have a say, switch to Champions or GURPS or something with extremely particular character creation systems.


*Some of our number are biased against predatory parahumans, and the attitude is infectious.

But the implication you mean by this point, that the opposite is also true, that its okay to ignore or flat out contradict the source material is just flat out wrong.

Well, it’s a good thing that the only place that implication and contradiction exists is in your head. I made no such claim and implied nothing of the sort and took great pains to make it clear that the book’s text cited by the previously-quoted poster was not on point. Given that it was not on point, I did not contradict it. Indeed, your claim is a severe mischaracterization since I went out of my way to point out why the example was irrelevant and offered no guidance -- and offered no limits on magic at large. We had this sort of thing come up here; the books were found inadequate by the players, your unflattering (and unwarranted) comparison notwithstanding. But that makes sense: they’re novels, not the Bible. (Hell, the Bible isn’t the bible of everything: it doesn’t cover lots of stuff. Which is good: it’s long enough as it is.)

  Because, as I already pointed out (and the novels support), its not a real emotion. Mind magic isn't really making them feel the emotion. Its just making them ACT as though they felt the emotion.

a) Any RPG played will immediately go beyond the scope of its novel source material.

b) What the quoted author claimed is not the only way imaginable magic can be used. The novels themselves show this since a love potion Dresden uses (as an example in the mechanics book for the rpg, so it's not a spoiler) most specifically does not compel -- therefore we already have two forms of emotion manipulation within the novels, one of which directly contradicts your declaration that there is only one way for magic to work. Within the outlines of the rpg, there's nothing keeping yet a third (and a forth, and a fifth) way for magic to create an effect that grants real emotion and relationships outside of those methods. Something we've seen used was a bit of thaumaturgy to give two (willing) individuals mental communication, freedom from insecurities, and an experience of rapid subjective time -- growing a (platonic) relationship at incredible speed, with some side effects.

I am my mother's child, but I am not a child. Keep that quirk of English in mind. I'm also my mother's baby, as you, reader, likely are your own mother's baby, but nevertheless haven't worn a diaper for many decades (and hope to put off doing it again for many, many more).

Sacrificing for your mother is such a compelling concept that it is used to ironically humanize thugs, who respect the offspring-parent bond, in every culture I can think of.

Again, the shortage of love isn't that of individual relationships, but the general love of humanity. Back to that one guy:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?  -- Mt 5:43

That still leaves plenty of people for WCV to feed on, though they have to be careful. If the love that burned them was romantic love, they'd have an easier time of it: loving one's children and getting loved back is far easier -- usually it's just a matter of time, as a parent, until you get reciprocation. Finding someone who loves you romantically, profoundly, is more of a crapshoot, and it's waaaaay harder for an outsider to test (hence the immoral test I mentioned above).

But even if non-romantic love counts, WCV could just lean towards the childless and stick to very dysfunctional families and they'll do fine. Really, Black Courts have it rougher all the way around -- ignoring the super powers for a moment.

The Third Law, as described on p. 238, only concerns itself with reading thoughts. No other forms of magical interaction are contemplated in that description.

If a warden wants to kill you, the warden will try to kill you. (I say only "try" because PCs are anomalous badasses and may be tougher than a warden-irritant has any right to be.) The issue is one of power, not justice. The law will mean what the powers that be want it to mean, so if you have an issue with them, you need political power, not justice or understanding.

As for the actual Laws (which I don't think are natural forces at all -- but I digress), the easiest way to settle arguments for us has been to consider intent. It's enthrallment if you intended enthrallment, it's stealing knowledge if you intended to steal knowledge -- this is why a willing subject negates the mens rea of the "Law." The parallel to real life: if a doctor gives you a drug that impairs you but you take it willingly, there is no coercion and therefore no crime. If a policeman arrests you on false charges but sincerely believes that taking you in will be good for you in the long run, that intent would make him criminal. Good intentions do not negate bad intentions, but a complete absence of bad intentions prevents lawbreaking.

To make a completely unexpected analogy that would only be appreciated by a small group of people, it's easiest to handle the issue in games in a way that's similar to Falling in In Nomine. You can slip up from time to time, getting you close, but in the end it takes a conscious act of will to switch teams. And that fulfills my obscure analogy quota for the day.

The phrase “true love” belongs in the notebooks of junior high girls and no place else. It creates a nasty and petty non-distinction between types of otherwise profound love and, as we see here, sends people chasing their tails.

I have seen and experienced love that wasn’t very mushy or fuzzy but was far more profound than what’s called “true love” in romantic comedies. Drop the word “true,” just as one would drop the word “cold” in “cold iron” -- it’s an affection without meaning for our purposes.

So we’re left with some kind of profound love -- that is, love, as opposed to affection. (English overuses the term love and includes “affection” and “enjoyment” within the same.) Fine; that’s not too hard to find.

An immoral method of discovering a person experiencing love:

a) Find a married person: seize and hold that person with violence.
b) Promise to kill that person or his or her spouse, allowing the target to choose which.
c) If the target selects herself, congratulations: you’ve found love.

Divinations should be able to discover this without such gauche methods, as could visiting dreams or maybe mindreading (with the subject’s permission and cooperation if one isn’t using sponsored magic such that we don’t have any Law violations).

Dying for someone else is good enough. Seriously. If this isn’t the case, one must conclude that that one crazy dude who was going on about how “No one shows greater love than when he lays down his life for his friends” had no idea what he was talking about. Indeed, if a person holds the position that a willingness to die for someone else isn’t enough to qualify as love, such a person easily slips into the absurd and inane territory of ridiculous expectations. (I won’t link to tv tropes, but it’s an “arson and murder and jaywalking” type deal.) “Sure, she’ll die for you -- but will she have dinner ready when you get home?” If you feel like a douche for questioning the love of someone willing to sacrifice their life, a) you’ve found love and b) you’re a douche.

The real hard part is discovering what the vampire is vulnerable to. This can be done by finding out what the vampire feeds on. This takes a great deal of effort if the vampire is hiding it -- we’re already in no more than +1 Fate Refresh territory here.

One could also try generating the emotion, instead of producing a lovebird. That. . . seems actually kinda easy. Magic can generate emotions, so that gives lots of supernaturals access to whatever can hurt the target. Indeed, a bit of self-control can also generate appropriate emotions. Admittedly, a person who is utterly hopeless couldn’t generate hope, but outside of extreme personalities, anyone could generate most of the relevant emotions and magic could create the rest. After all, if magic can make you love someone enough to die for them, that consequence alone meets the “love test.” Thus, similar magic or effects could meet the hope and courage tests as well. I’d declare, in my games, that these passing emotions couldn’t “infect” an object such that the object is proof against the appropriate vampire -- the transference from person to object is cancelled if the basis for the emotion fails to persist -- but otherwise I’d find this fair.


Fighting a fear-feeding Malvora?
You’re one short evocation away from having enough bravery to charge in.

If you lack the evocation power, simple: Harden The F*** Up.


Oh,  almost forgot -- what’s the refresh cost, then? Well it can’t be better than +1: knowing which emotion is relevant is simply too tricky. It’s sort of an all-or-nothing thing: if you’re dealing with a wizard, you’re toast, between divination and lore. If you’re dealing with a mortal or a non-wizard paranormal, you’re secret is safe. WCV are puzzle monsters: figure out the puzzle and the challenge is completely transformed.

Seriously, the issue here is that a persistent, patient wizard pwns you. But that’s always the case. As such, this is a +1 catch if a WCV’s enemies will feverishly research him for a week, or a +0 catch if the WCV’s enemies are actually sane. I mean, two dudes, hired out of a Soldier of Fortune magazine, armed with an AK and a flamethrower are easier to finagle than Hope and Love and they end the Terrible Vampire Menace with aplomb.

[/unlurk]