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 - nearchus

Pages: [1] 2
1
DFRPG / Re: Does the poison from fists ignore toughness armour?
« on: March 06, 2011, 06:57:03 PM »
Quote from: horvagab on March 06, 2011, 06:45:50 PM
I can see a way around in a way: if the claws hit the character for damage, then poison applies, because in most cases that would mean that through clawing or whatever means the poison has entered the blood stream. Although that still leaves quite a few open endings.

The disconnect seems to be that people consider the "armor" of the Toughness powers to be "tough skin". If that were the case the ability wouldn't say "all physical stress". It's not a matter of them being just tough to beat on. They're resistant to poisons, disease, hot or cold environments, high pressure, etc. Any or all of these would be perfectly fine Catches for a character. And if you wanted it to be just tougher skin, then you could get a pretty hefty Catch (it's specific, and lots of things that people have easy access to get around it.)

Quote from: Sanctaphrax on March 06, 2011, 06:50:44 PM
That being said, I kinda like the idea of a poison that satisfies all catches as with the All Creatures Are Equal Before God power. The World Serpent from norse mythology definitely deserves that power.

I stand corrected. That's an excellent example of a poison that probably would have an equivalent effect to All Creatures Are Equal Before God.

2
DFRPG / Re: Does the poison from fists ignore toughness armour?
« on: March 06, 2011, 06:24:02 PM »
The Toughness power gives armor against *all* physical stress ("all" is even emphasized in the book.) Poison would be a perfectly good Catch for a Toughness power, but the rules are quite clear as to how the power works. Also, if you want a character that has physically tough skin and bones (and presumably organs), then your Catch would be any non-physical force (such as disease, poison, etc.)

Quote from: bitterpill on March 06, 2011, 03:37:00 PM
I see so it is a no right answer gm mandate situation.

Only in the sense that anything is a GM mandated situation. The rule says "all physical stress". If the poison does physical stress then the power provides "armor" against it. There could certainly be a poison that satisfies a character's Catch, or even one so deadly that it satisfies all Catches (though this seems unlikely and sounds like a really terrible plot idea.)

3
DFRPG / Re: Giving teeth to enforcement of The Laws
« on: March 03, 2011, 07:39:16 PM »
Quote from: sinker on March 03, 2011, 05:52:27 PM
I'm sure Tallyrand's concept works very well when you have a group of players who are inexperienced and trying to "win" the game. Personally the line between 2 and 3 does seem a bit arbitrary to me, however there is no line (except maybe the line between 0 and 1) that really makes perfect sense, so everyone's going to draw their own arbitrary line.

If the entire group actually has the conversation as advised under "In your game..." and in other places in the book, then this shouldn't be a problem. Your group decides what is reasonable. If one player is playing to "win" then their result will often be unreasonable. That is, if the rest of the group isn't playing to win. And if *everyone* is playing to win, and it's just the GM who thinks that the players aren't adding enough conflict into their character's lives, then I'd suggest that GM either rethink his position or find a new group.

Many game systems are designed to run as a competition. The players compete to conquer the problems presented by the GM. This game system limits that and gives the players more power to interact with the story and make it their own. It's not the GM's responsibility to determine when a character has become boring for a player and decide that the character has suddenly accidentally killed someone. This is the player's choice, not the GM's. The only time they don't get to is when their choice is inconsistent with the setting that was agreed upon by the group.

4
DFRPG / Re: Giving teeth to enforcement of The Laws
« on: March 03, 2011, 01:59:54 PM »
Quote from: Tallyrand on March 03, 2011, 01:13:55 AM
What your saying, that killing accidentally isn't possible, isn't supported by the rules sense it says specifically that the Taken Out result must be reasonable.  What it at debate here is what is reasonable and what the designers intended reasonable to be, which isn't clearly stated by the rules. So to counter, the lack of any intent suggestion that it is impossible for a player to accidentally have his character kill someone makes it clear IMO that your interpretation is incorrect.  But again, it is never clearly stated either way.

That's not even remotely what I've been saying , but it's become clear to me that the distinction the book makes between character choices and player choices isn't going to become clear to you. I never said that accidental death isn't possible. I said that players can't have their characters kill other people accidentally unless they want to. DF gives massive control over a character's story to the player. If they want to have their character accidentally murder someone then they can do that (as long as the result is reasonable). If they want to have almost killed someone but happen to not have then this is also fine (again, as long as it's reasonable).

For a vague and very general example, imagine a climactic scene between a character and their archenemy. In the conflict, the character manages to shoot/spell/whatever the archenemy a couple times and big baddie is "taken out". The *player* can now decide what they would like to happen. If they feel that this was, in fact, a good climax to their story concerning the archenemy then *they* get to decide that the archenemy is dead. If they'd prefer that the archenemy lives they can say that he (it?) managed to survive the wounds after being left for dead by the character. In most games these choices are left to the GM, but in DF, these are a player's choice. Players get to decide if their characters are reckless violators of the First Law or whether they use magic carefully.

The "In your game..." sections give the exceptionally good advice to make sure that the players are all on the same page as to what sort of game they're running. To be in the spirit of DF they *shouldn't* run around flinging fireballs and then claim that the mortals somehow survived. So the players and GM should discuss what reasonable is to them and how characters should respond to mortals being in the line of fire. This section, by the way, deliberately doesn't give "mechanics" because they aren't needed. The players already have the mechanics available to them. They're allowed to have their character accidentally violate the First Law if they really want to.

5
DFRPG / Re: Giving teeth to enforcement of The Laws
« on: March 03, 2011, 12:51:36 AM »
Quote from: Tallyrand on March 03, 2011, 12:14:00 AM
True, but when the "In your game' sections warn the players about the dangers accidentally killing that strongly suggests that it's possible for the players to accidentally kill.

Several people on the 'you can't accidentally kill in DFRPG' side keep coming at this as if your position was in some way factually supported by the rules.  It isn't, the rules are neutral on the subject as this is a very subjective game, my position is simply what I read as the intent of the games creators.  In addition I, and I belive this is why the creators would intend it this way, believe that providing the possibility for accidental killing makes the game more dynamic and dramatic and makes the story more interesting.  If any wizard can throw around almost any spell without fear of consequence then you don't really have Harry Dresden (who is constantly worried about the consequences of his actions), you have a a urban fantasy superhero who cockily blows up anything that gets into his way.  Tension and forcing characters (and players) to make hard decisions (Do I go all out and risk killing him or to I hold back and risk getting hit again?) are what good storytelling are made of so far as how I view it.

This is the second time you've made this claim. The rules *do* in fact, support the idea that only time an accidental death is going to happen is when a player decides that it happens.  The rule is that when a "Taken Out" effect happens, the person that does it gets to decide what happens. The sections you're talking about *never* say that it's possible for a player to have a character accidentally kill someone without their consent. What they do say is that you should discuss how the players should deal with these situations.

It says that you should discuss how important you want the First Law to be. The advice given is that you, as the player, shouldn't take these situations lightly because characters being played consistently with the Dresden Files setting wouldn't take these situations lightly. This is important because reasonable players *should* decide that their character has killed another when they use lethal force and this section encourages that. But you aren't required to. It doesn't say that in the section for "Taken Out" and it doesn't say it under the "In your game" sections despite your claim to the contrary.

The lack of any rules to support your claim makes it pretty clear that your interpretation of the writers "intent" is incorrect. Their "intent" is to stress that the players and the GM shouldn't throw around lethal magic and decide that they never kill anyone because this isn't in line with the setting. This is perfectly consistent with the rule that the player decides what happens when a "taken out" result happens.

6
DFRPG / Re: Giving teeth to enforcement of The Laws
« on: March 03, 2011, 12:02:55 AM »
Quote from: tymire on March 02, 2011, 11:51:07 PM
The problem is that players generally will NEVER choose to have negative long term/perment effects hit their character.  Now making them uncomfortable in short term heck yea, but accidently breaking a law as written, is perment and it isn’t an accident if the player doesn’t want it to be (which doesn't follow how the novels are read).

If this is true for your group then I'd suggest discussing with them why they're opposed to such effects. If they continue to refuse then you have a couple options. You can impose your own view of reasonable upon the group and hope they still have fun or you can find another game system that supports that view. There are *plenty* out there.

But if your players are really opposed to having their character ever accidentally kill someone because they want to blow up buildings with impunity and the system gives them the power to decide that their character didn't hurt anyone then this might not be the game for them. I guess if they're having fun, more power to them, but I certainly wouldn't be having a good time in that game.

7
DFRPG / Re: Giving teeth to enforcement of The Laws
« on: March 02, 2011, 11:54:50 PM »
Quote from: Tallyrand on March 02, 2011, 11:40:03 PM
The "In your game" sections are specifically speaking to and about players and not characters.  You can play it how you like, but your position isn't explicitly supported in the rules (and note, mine isn't either, I just feel that these sections make a clear indication of the designers intent).


It's true that those sections encourage the group to discuss what they'd find reasonable. I'm unclear what you think is inconsistent. There is simply no mechanic in the game for a player to have their character accidentally kill another character without the player wanting to, or the group finding a lethal result the *only* reasonable thing that could happen. These sections encourage the players and GM to decide, with each other, what reasonable consequences are, which is exceptionally good advice.

I understand that FATE is a different system than most, but I find it difficult to believe that the distinction between player and character choice is *that* unclear. Especially since this system relies on that distinction much more than most other game systems.

8
DFRPG / Re: Giving teeth to enforcement of The Laws
« on: March 02, 2011, 11:31:04 PM »
Quote from: Tallyrand on March 02, 2011, 10:56:17 PM
YS 233: Fist paragraph after What Happens When You Break The Laws would be unnecessary if it was impossible to do so accidentally.

YS 236: The section after In your game makes no sense whatsoever if unintentionally killing is impossible.

YS 237: In the first paragraph after In your game


I've said this before, and I guess I'll say it again, though I'm not sure what's unclear about the rules concerning this: A *character* can accidentally kill another. A *player* cannot. So, when you as a player get a "taken out" result you can decide that your *character* accidentally (if they weren't meaning to) killed another if this is a reasonable outcome based on what happened. And if your character does something that would reasonably end with someone's death and you wish for them not to, you need to convince the rest of the table that your result is reasonable.

This means that your character can shoot someone several times and they might live. This is possible, and could be reasonable. It isn't reasonable if the player simply wants their character to avoid being a murderer (they probably shouldn't have shot the guy that many times), at least in my opinion. But it'd be reasonable if, for instance, your character *wanted* the person dead and shot them and left them for dead only to find out that they didn't die. There are other scenarios in which this would be reasonable, and I'll leave it up to your imagination. Also, you could have your character *accidentally* kill someone with a stray bullet, spell, or even a deliberate punch that happened to connect to a sensitive place (or hit someone already injured).

The point is that you, as the player, decide when your character makes this mistake. It's true that this puts a lot of power in the hands of the players, but if you don't trust the people you play with, I'd suggest discussing with them what type of game you'd like to be playing in.

9
DFRPG / Re: Offensive options for physical combat, or "Is Fists made of Fail?"
« on: March 02, 2011, 05:31:09 PM »
Quote from: Bruce Coulson on March 02, 2011, 05:08:27 PM
Magic is a function of intent.  If a player makes an attack in a way that would reasonably lead to unconsciousness rather than death, and clearly states that is the intent of their attack, I would generally allow it...but again, if the PC gets too many shifts, or uses too much power, then there will be other consequences.

Weapons and Guns are another matter.  As the song says, 'handguns are made for killing'.  It's very difficult to make a non-lethal attack with a device intended to kill people.  I'd require Shifts to be used to convert damage to non-lethal, on a 2-1 ratio.  (3-1 with Guns.)  There's a reason police don't reach for their sidearms in every confrontation.

Fists, on the other hand, are non-lethal.  It's possible to beat someone to death with your bare hands, but it takes time and a lot of determination.

The point is that no extra rules are necessary for this. A *player* gets to choose the results, not the character. If a player is consistently choosing results only because they're beneficial to the character, and this isn't what the rest of the table finds reasonable, then it's unreasonable. Sometimes a person gets shot once and dies, sometimes they get shot a half dozen times and live. Both are "reasonable" consequences and are allowed for within the system. What would be unreasonable is if a player decides that he doesn't want his character to be a murderer after blowing up a building filled with people. Even if some (most?) of the people survive there is no way for the character to have known that they would. The character is no less irresponsible despite the act of the player to mitigate that responsibility. And the table should come up with what they believe would be reasonable results based on the action involved (this includes the GM and players, or just the GM if the players prefer). But the bottom line is that the rule isn't that you get to pick *anything*. You get to pick any result that is reasonable. There are very important distinctions at work here. The player chooses the result, and not the character. And the result must be reasonable.

But this is all really way off topic, for which I apologize (since I'm almost entirely responsible for the tangent). As to why Fists aren't fail, it's less a matter of them being non-lethal (or less lethal) but one of escalation (for which lethality is a major factor). Pulling out a weapon, any weapon, is the universal sign of "This just got serious." If that isn't the message you want to be sending, then fists are your main option.

10
DFRPG / Re: Offensive options for physical combat, or "Is Fists made of Fail?"
« on: March 02, 2011, 05:03:00 PM »
Quote from: bitterpill on March 02, 2011, 04:39:29 PM
Hypnotic Spirit Lights Attack and you can no longer breath attack. 

I'm unfamiliar with the "Hypnotic Spirit Lights Attack" but I assume it's a block on all actions (and therefore not actually an attack)? And by "no longer breath attack" I assume you mean something like Orbius. Both of these effects can be done with other elements (fire is difficult, but not impossible). But the distinction is that you're using the power of the spell to do something other than forcefully attack your opponent. Using blocks and maneuvers to subdue an opponent is certainly a way to keep your attacks less lethal.

Quote from: DFJunkie on March 02, 2011, 04:45:43 PM
"I smack him with a Weapon:4 blast of pure force.  Being well aware of the potential for this much force to kill him, I hit him off center, on the shoulder, so he's whipped around violently.  He's unconscious, probably has whiplash, but alive."

(Harry's force rings are presented as Weapon:4 in the Enchanted Item example, and he's blasted vanilla mortals with them on several occasions.  When he mentions it, he usually talks up the "taking care to not hit them lethally" angle.  The above example is practically a quote from the beginning of Summer Knight, when he takes out the uzi wielding goon with his ring.)

"I call up a ton of volts but low amps and shock the shit out of him with Weapon:4.  He pisses himself, twitches for a few minutes, and collapses in a heap."

For instance.

I'm unclear how this is an argument against what I've been claiming. I'm not saying that not killing someone with what could be lethal weapons isn't reasonable. You can stab and shoot people without killing them. What I'm saying is that if a character consistently uses lethal forces (even Fists) in a reckless manner and consistently claims that people won't die from this, I'd find this unreasonable. And I'm also saying that Spirit and Air are inherently no less lethal than Fire, Earth or Water elements. You can use them all in controlled ways in order to not kill people (again, Fire is slightly more difficult in some cases), but you can also shoot someone in the shoulder, or attempt to stab someone in a place that won't kill them. It'd be a reasonable result if the player wanted that person to die accidentally anyway, and it'd be reasonable for them to claim that they live. I just don't see how using Spirit or Air in the same way that someone would use "10 shift fireballs and lightning strikes, sword swings or bursts from an AK-47" (to quote Kommisar) would result in anything less lethal.


11
DFRPG / Re: Offensive options for physical combat, or "Is Fists made of Fail?"
« on: March 02, 2011, 04:37:39 PM »
Quote from: bitterpill on March 02, 2011, 04:19:40 PM
Dosen't this just mean they use spirit or air attack against the enemy rather than fire. 

I've seen this mentioned before, but I'm a little unclear how Spirit or Air attacks are any less lethal (unless the characters tend to use less Power when they use these attacks). The Power of the spell determines how lethal it is, not the element. And despite claims to the contrary, beating someone with a heavy object, or pure force attacks, are just as lethal as setting them on fire, cutting, or shooting them. Less force does less damage (like punching someone as opposed to hitting them with a car), but equal force (or in DFRPG mechanics weapon rating or power for spells) does equal damage. But I guess you're less likely to set them on fire.

12
DFRPG / Re: Giving teeth to enforcement of The Laws
« on: March 02, 2011, 01:32:44 PM »
Quote from: sinker on March 02, 2011, 06:40:21 AM
I have two issues with this by RAW. If they are random mooks, then it's likely that they don't have the commitment to the conflict necessary to have consequences. In that case a 13 would mandate a taken out result and the player would be well within his rights to demand his "taken out" result.

This is not strictly true. The rules for "Taken Out" are not that the player gets to choose any result. The rule is that they may "demand" a reasonable result. The player is more than welcome to consistently use lethal force on mortals and claim that they'll only be knocked out if the rest of the table feels that this is reasonable.

With that said, I'd find it reasonable that in some cases people die and in others they get horrible burns (or miraculously survive relatively unharmed). After all, the outcome of horrific attacks are generally unpredictable and the rules are meant to simulate this. I wouldn't find it reasonable that only the targets that the player wanted to kill died and everyone else conveniently survived. And I wouldn't find it reasonable if it consistently turned out that people survived lethal attacks. If a player wants to play a reckless character that uses lethal force to take down their opponents on every occasion then I assume they're playing a reckless character for a reason. That is, that they want consequences for that recklessness and not total immunity to the problems that come with being a psychopath who flings fireballs into crowds of people (keep in mind that while the *player* knows he won't kill anyone, the character cannot possibly know that will be the result.)

But I feel like the game already handles this well enough. If the table feels that the "taken out" results are reasonable, then it's fine. Everyone is having fun and that's just the style of game they want to play. If they don't feel it's reasonable, then the collected group of players should discuss what they would all find reasonable. If one person finds it reasonable and they don't understand why it isn't, then I'd suggest the entire gaming group discuss with them what type of game they're attempting to play.


13
DFRPG / Re: Offensive options for physical combat, or "Is Fists made of Fail?"
« on: March 01, 2011, 03:43:13 PM »
Quote from: Seb Wiers on March 01, 2011, 02:40:40 AM
Yes, game-mechanics wise, there is very little to recommend fists over guns or weapons.  You can't accidentally kill somebody in DFRPG, fists flat out do less damage than weapons, and weapons can grant special aspects etc.

A player can't accidentally kill a character with their own character, but your character can certainly accidentally kill someone. If players are consistently having their characters attack others with lethal weapons and never killing any of them (or only killing the ones they want and conveniently not killing the ones they'd prefer not to) then this is "fine", in the sense that the rules allow for it. If everyone at the table feels that this is reasonable, and more importantly fun, then go for it. My guess is that such a game is also less interested in the consequences of escalating a conflict to lethal levels (or possible even the distinction between lethal and non-lethal physical conflicts). If this is the case, then there's very little to argue that Fists isn't an inferior skill. But for the rest of the games out there, Fists does have a "mechanical" purpose.

14
DFRPG / Re: Offensive options for physical combat, or "Is Fists made of Fail?"
« on: March 01, 2011, 01:04:12 AM »
Quote from: Tedronai on March 01, 2011, 12:32:52 AM
'rubber' bullets, tasers, maces, hammers, clubs, saps, etc.

It's true that there are non-lethal guns/weapons. Though I'd suggest that all of those are *more* lethal than a punch, with some reaching dangerously lethal levels. (Maces and Hammers?) The point I was attempting to make is that a Weapon or Gun escalates the situation (even a taser or a sap). A fist fight *can* be a lethal affair, but once you pull out a sword or a gun, you're saying you're willing to put the other person down. Sometimes this is what you want. There are other times where you don't want the situation to get that out of control.

15
DFRPG / Re: Offensive options for physical combat, or "Is Fists made of Fail?"
« on: March 01, 2011, 12:21:02 AM »
Some Pros to Fists:

Bringing a gun or a knife to a fist fight is generally frowned upon. Also, if you'd prefer not to kill everyone you happen to get into a fight with, Fists is probably the way to go. It's true that Weapons and Guns are better for killing people/things, but not all fights are to the death. And it's much easier to accidentally kill someone with a weapon than your hands (not that it's impossible to beat someone to death, just less likely than putting large holes in their organs).



Pages: [1] 2