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 - Escher

Pages: [1]
1
That's not how I read that bullet point.  To me, "the character has at least one moderate or worse consequence as a result of the conflict" means if you took a moderate or worse consequence prior to concession, you already have taken enough of a penalty and don't need to be further penalized for bowing out (e.g., you've got cracked ribs or the enemy has guessed your plans, you don't need to also have lost your favorite weapon or end up in deep debt or whatever).  I guess you could demand that the character take a consequence as their fee for leaving the fight if they hadn't previously taken a hard hit, but that seems contrary to part of the basic description of Concession ("your character doesn’t have to take any consequences you’re not willing to take").

I tend to use the Fate Core book as a resource for a lot of my 'How to run the game' type stuff (especially for the specific rules on assessment/declaration/guess, which I found really clunky in DFRPG).  While concession there is largely the same, Core doesn't mention any of that "clear and decisive disadvantage" stuff.  It just says "you get to avoid the worst parts of your fate" and warns against undermining the opponent's victory, but it doesn't go into any details or requirements about what makes an appropriate concession penalty.  In that book, it reads more that the main penalty for concession is that, y'know, the bad guy got what they wanted, and that's enough of a setback.

In any case, the intent was that my house rule doesn't change the mechanics of concession any, it just says you can forgo the "cashing out" fate point(s) in exchange for conceding after you know what kind of damage you're looking at.

For the record, most of the time the player is more willing to take a consequence and cash out later than to give up the potential fate points.  My house rule mostly comes into things when some baddie randomly rolls a +4 and is about to do something really unexpectedly nasty, or hits with a particularly powerful spell, or something of that nature.

2
Yeah, setting the combat goal somewhere other than "out to kill you" is a good idea -- there should very rarely be a fight where the death of one side is literally the only possible outcome.

That said, I tend to run games that are less gritty and more epic, so I tend to have a somewhat more-liberal-than-RAW stance on concession vs take-outs.  I will often let somebody semi-concede by being intentionally taken out -- that is to say, if they could have absorbed the hit, but the consequences aren't worth staying in the fight, and assuming they have taken at least one consequence (even if it was from that very attack), they can be 'taken out' but retain the minor narrative control of a concession.  They don't get any fate points for it, but it makes a good middle road for getting out of the fight without ceding total narrative control.

For example, if you have three stress boxes and the baddie manages to throw an eight-shift hit, I'd be inclined to let you take a minor or moderate consequence and get removed from the fight, but it's in that "left for dead"/"fleeing ignominiously" sort of way rather than getting taken prisoner or murdered or whatever.

It may not be quite legit, but it does give me more leeway to have "trying to actually kill you" enemies while still not threatening actual character death with every little fight.

3
A lot of times there seems to be a mind-set that getting taken out -- or even concession -- has to indicate physical incapacitation.  Which it doesn't.  It just means you lose.  You fail the task you were attempting to accomplish.  You lose the object, you fail to save the hostage, the bad guy escapes, you get arrested... it doesn't have to mean you're left in a heap on the floor.

But I'm not disagreeing with Taran -- yes, the GM needs to communicate when the results of a fight are going to be death.  It even says so in the book.  At the same time I get frustrated with that mind-set that some GMs have where every fight is basically to the death.  Just because a troll probably wants to eat me, doesn't mean getting taken out by him should automatically mean he does.  It's that thing where every fight needs to have a clearly defined "win condition", and "the other side are all dead" should be very rare.  Even if somebody's trying to kill you, your death is usually only a means to an end.

That's fine, but it is important to note that's not an opinion or interpretation of rules; you're describing a house rule. The Rules as Written are clear that concessions occur before a dice roll.
...If your PCs are getting beaten up and then you plan on throwing a Weapon 10 area attack at most of them, then the GM should pick up the dice, make an evil grin and say "This warlock is getting pretty desperate. Who knows what he might do next. Anyone want to concede?" Etc
Well, it says at the latest, you concede before a dice roll.  You can concede on your turn, or after your big gun fails, or interrupting the bad guy before he does his thing.

That last one is the big one, though.  Some GMs play this game with the players where they won't announce the enemy's action before rolling.  "Okay, so it's the warlock's turn now.  Hmmm... okay." <marks on sheet> <rolls>  "The warlock lifts his hands and sends a wall of black magic rushing towards you, you all take seven stress!"

There's no opportunity to do what the book says and interrupt the action before the dice hit the table; when exactly was I supposed to concede in there?

A better option is to stop trying to surprise the players, and tell a story.  "The warlock lifts his hands and starts gathering black energy.  He throws his arms forward and cries 'NECROSIS!'" <picks up dice> "Okay, this is a weapon 5 spell, so--"    "Whoa!  No way!  I'm already in bad shape, I concede!"

4
DFRPG / Re: "Official" Perspective on Lawbreaking
« on: May 08, 2015, 12:40:05 AM »
Harry got Lawbreaker from that first event, killing Justin, but the Velvet Room wouldn't be enough to give him a second rank since he'd have to kill thrice to get it again, right?

But that aside, in the light of Turn Coat, I guess we have to consider that the Wardens' behavior (and the senior council's, actually) is suspect to being mentally influenced.  Molly said if it was her, she'd tweak and nudge their behaviors, amping up some aspects of personality (paranoia, anger, conservatism, fatalism, etc) and suppressing others (mercy, empathy, trust, etc).  Do we have any way to tell how long Peabody had been exerting influence on the Council?  It's possible that he's been doing it for a very long time, so the 'old-school hardline wardens' may or may not be an accurate look at wardens in general.  The new-school wardens may be more in line with what the wardens looked like three hundred years ago.

5
DFRPG / Re: Fate points from the GM NPC perspective
« on: December 30, 2012, 05:54:43 AM »
The rule you're looking for is the sidebar on YS 352, which is an optional rule to pool your NPCs' fate points instead of having each one track separately.

But yes, that makes sense, have the player create the aspect and tag it for effect and then treat that as a compel.

6
DFRPG / Fate points from the GM NPC perspective
« on: December 30, 2012, 02:56:44 AM »
I've been reading the book trying to figure out how fate points work for the GM as far as NPCs are concerned.

When there's a scene or character aspect that would benefit a PC, when is that invoked (PC spends a Fate point) versus compelled (NPC gains a Fate point)?  Or are those the same thing?  As a related issue, when does the PC's invocation give him the usual reroll or +2 bonus, and when should it cause the NPC to automatically fail a task or otherwise get a narrative compel?  Or is it more on the basis of whatever is appropriate at a moment?

An example might be Black Court versus a holy symbol.  But in this case, specifically, I'm trying to build a sort of monster that loathes the sound of clanging metal, and bells in particular.  A cast iron skillet and a ladle will do in an emergency, but a church bell will send 'em running.  So how would I handle that in play?  If a character just grabs a pan and starts banging, does that cost a point or something?  A block based on some skill with a +2 bonus for the aspect invocation?  (Assuming they learned in an earlier scene about this weakness, should they get to tag it the first time?  And then how do I handle it in subsequent scenes?)  Or do I just handle it as a compel, give the monsters a fate point and have them back off, forcing them to come after the players later?

7
DFRPG / Re: Playing an obvious non-human
« on: July 02, 2011, 03:07:03 PM »
I think we're all on the same page here.  I know Mouse can interact to a certain degree, but only in broad strokes when it's to people who don't know how very, very smart he really is, and (as you said) Toot or some other faerie will be very limited without going to a lot of trouble.

The main thing I guess I was thinking of was the Living Dead creature feature, which has a major penalty associated with it (needing extreme means to repair consequences) and a pretty serious limitation (penalizing any interaction roll that isn't intimidate or deceit).

8
DFRPG / Playing an obvious non-human
« on: July 02, 2011, 07:13:28 AM »
Is it possible to play an obvious nonhuman in Dresden?  I mean, for example, Toot or a ghost -- or heck, Mouse?  Is there any way (or any need) to balance the fact that they more or less can't meaningfully interact with mundane humans without some major effort?  If they take Human Form or Glamours or some such thing, yeah, they could bypass that, but assuming that's outside the character concept, is this possible?  And how would I handle it?

9
DFRPG / Re: Developing a stunt: Draw Down
« on: July 02, 2011, 04:46:59 AM »
Yes, I mean rolls to use the Aiming trapping of Guns.

The connection between the benefits is the idea of that move police do (maybe only on TV, hah) of pulling the gun and taking aim in one smooth motion -- drawing down on somebody but not opening fire.

10
DFRPG / Developing a stunt: Draw Down
« on: July 01, 2011, 10:13:19 PM »
Draw Down: You are trained in the use of a firearm as a deterrent. You take no penalty when drawing a pistol as a supplemental action, and you gain a +1 bonus to Guns rolls for Aiming at targets in your zone.

I came up with this mortal stunt the other day for my police officer, to reflect the "draw and cover" sort of move.  I'm curious to hear any comments on this.  The GM asked for some limitations from what it was originally, which is why the first part works only for pistols and the second works only against point-blank targets, so I'm particularly interested to hear whether you think it's good as written, or needs more or less restriction.



11
DFRPG / Re: Monsters with nonstandard attacks
« on: December 12, 2010, 03:46:53 AM »
Escher, you're talking a Sonic Scream that does physical stress to an entire zone, right?
Right, of course.  Like all the glass shatters and everyone covers their ears and so on.  Breath Weapon seems much more apt to me, for this purpose, than some kind of Incite Emotions modification that makes it do physical damage; I just don't think linking it to the Weapons skill makes much sense.

12
DFRPG / Re: Monsters with nonstandard attacks
« on: December 11, 2010, 07:16:18 PM »
Um.  Maybe I just wasn't being very clear.

I want her to have two distinct abiliites: Siren's Song and Harpy's Screech.  One encompasses the beautiful, hypnotic version that Odysseus ran into; the other is the more modern idea of a sonic blast that shatters glass and harms everything around her.  I'm satisfied that what I have for Siren's Song works exactly how I want it to -- she can use Incite Emotion (trance) at range as a block, which mesmerizes a single target into not acting for one turn.

The other, the Harpy version, is the one I wasn't really happy with.  But let's just say forget the harpy concept:

If I wanted to build a monster with a supernatural ability to blast the area around him, how would I do that?  (For example, a flame elemental might be able to ignite his fiery body into a pyre that floods the room around him, or a hedgehog-like monster might be able to shoot a spray of quills into his environment.)  I don't see anything in the book that supports giving a creature an area attack other than a grenade or spell effect, but maybe I'm over-thinking and it should be just a custom upgrade to Breath Weapon, adding a -1 refresh cost to it.  Does that sound appropriate?

13
DFRPG / Re: Monsters with nonstandard attacks
« on: December 11, 2010, 04:35:24 PM »
Would converting a normal supernatural attack into an area effect be a -1 refresh stunt, do you think?  Since it costs two shifts in a magic spell, and two shifts seems to be a pretty normal stunt effect, that seems like it might work.  Would it be one stunt to make both attacks have an area option or one each?

Anyway, I did rename the Incite Emotion, it's called Siren Song, as I said in the first post.

14
DFRPG / Monsters with nonstandard attacks
« on: December 11, 2010, 06:22:35 AM »
So I've just started playing around with the system, and I have a few questions.  My background is in system-heavy games like D&D or Mutants & Masterminds, so I'm probably just overthinking this... but still.

I was trying to build a changeling harpy girl as an experiment.  I gave her Human Form, which restricts her Wings and Claws to operating only when she lets the faerie side out, but the really critical parts I'm not sure how to do.

I think I finally worked out how to make Siren Song work:  It's Incite Emotion (trance) with the At Range upgrade (if you can call trance an emotion), and the primary use of it is for Blocking the target, spending her action to mesmerize somebody with her song.

But I also wanted to give her a Harpy's Scream attack, and I just can't figure out how to do what I want it to do.  I looked at writing it up as a sonic breath weapon, but that wasn't really what I wanted -- It's a single target attack when I think an area effect is really more what I'm looking for, and it uses the Weapon skill.  I can't see how being good with knives and javelins translates to using a sonic scream more effectively.

What I really had in mind was a Weapon:2 attack that uses some other skill (I don't know, maybe Endurance or Discipline) and has a whole area effect on the area she's currently in, shattering all the glass and smashing small objects in her vicinity.  I'd be okay if it does some backlash stress to her in the process -- In fact, what I'm looking for could probably be done as a her knowing a single rote spell (and perhaps substitute endurance for conviction in the role of "how much power I can put in").

Any help or ideas?

Pages: [1]