An Idea: Tagging for Continuous Damage

[LCDarkwood]

Sure, sure. I agree, there are some interpretive voids in the text. Some of that comes from my value judgment and from the spirit of the books - how often do people just set each other on fire and wait for them to die? Like, it just isn't a case that comes up, even when you have a wizard who liberally uses fire magic. And it's a pretty anticlimactic ending for a fight - fitting for a group of henchies/thugs, maybe, but certainly not for named characters. For all that Jim sometimes uses verisimilitude to make his hero look smart, the Dresden Files still has a bunch of conceits from adventure fiction in it.

(Here's the funny part - we could bring this full circle and say that if you're going to set the "On Fire!" aspect on someone, the purpose of it should be to compel it to end the fight without doing any more rolls, or to compel someone to take action to put out the fire before attending to any smart combat stuff.)


-L

[void]

A further note I'd like to present is that this RPG isn't meant to simulate combat in particular. That's just one type of conflict that can be managed by the narrative flow toolkit FATE 3 provides.

Trying to get fiddly about certain balance concerns, certain types of specific damage management, and trying to fret about EXACTLY how much more powerful one thing is than another, and whether something is COMPLETELY modelled by the ruleset is... kind of misapplying the amazing toolset we've been given.

Some specificity is lost, because it often isn't narratively interesting. We're building a story. The rules that we have are about splitting the influence -- more particularly, the types and timing of that influence -- on how that story unfolds.

[iago]

Yeah. I mean, I think Lenny's made the best point, that these sorts of things should really be about tagging for effect and compels and whatnot.  Someone lays down ON FIRE on a dude, as the GM I'm going to be compelling the crap out of that in order to make him deal with this whole FIRE BAD thing, and *that's* the effect the fire has. Damage? Meh. It made this guy run around like a headless chicken on LSD. THAT is the effect.

[void]

Headless chicken on LSD.

I can't stop giggling.

[iago]

You liked that? I liked that. I was pretty damn proud of it. If I was GMing I'd be running all around the room shrieking as I'm talking about this guy too. Antics: they're what's for dinner.

[MacsNewBrew]

Wow. I REALLY need to find an ongoing game to watch sometime to see how it's done.

[Deadmanwalking]

A further note I'd like to present is that this RPG isn't meant to simulate combat in particular. That's just one type of conflict that can be managed by the narrative flow toolkit FATE 3 provides.

Trying to get fiddly about certain balance concerns, certain types of specific damage management, and trying to fret about EXACTLY how much more powerful one thing is than another, and whether something is COMPLETELY modelled by the ruleset is... kind of misapplying the amazing toolset we've been given.

Some specificity is lost, because it often isn't narratively interesting. We're building a story. The rules that we have are about splitting the influence -- more particularly, the types and timing of that influence -- on how that story unfolds.

Actually, I've been trying to think of anything that the system culdn't model...and I couldn't come up with anything but this. So, as I see it, no you don't have to lose specificity. As long as I can come up with something for this, everything's cool.

And I would absolutely apply these rules to appropriate social or mental situations, the one that immediately comes to mind is applying an Aspect like "Freaking the Hell Out!" at a high class party or other formal social situation, which would cause continuous damage until they managed a Discipline maneuver to remove the Aspect and calm down.

Actually, thinking about it, that might be why I'm so unwilling to limit it to a use of environmental damage on a case by case basis, because making the criteria "appropriate Aspect based" seems like it would open a variety of really cool options. There'd need to be an appropriate situation, but it seems like players who come up with creative ways to arrange something like that should be able to.

And I'm not saying you can't tag the Aspect for effect, or shouldn't be able to do that instead of damage, I just think you should have damage as an option.

And yeah, the 'headless chicken on LSD thing is hilarious.  

[Korwin]

I thought of an possible problem with ongoing damage.

Thaumaturgie

At the moment you need what?
>30 shifts to kill someone with thaumaturgie?
How many shifts would you need with the ongoing damage houserule?

[void]

And I'm not saying you can't tag the Aspect for effect, or shouldn't be able to do that instead of damage, I just think you should have damage as an option.

The thing is, we HAVE damage as an option. it's already there. Both as burst and continuous damage.

The idea is.. Either you're using fire to hurt them (applying physical stress), or you're using fire to cause some other effect (applying an aspect).

The effects of stress are pretty straightforward, but a temporary aspect is, itself, a form of plot momentum. The story will trend towards certain directions with certain aspects in play.

You're looking to get both stress and an aspect, which gets you double the narrative effect from a single modeled action.

[Deadmanwalking]

I thought of an possible problem with ongoing damage.

Thaumaturgie

At the moment you need what?
>30 shifts to kill someone with thaumaturgie?
How many shifts would you need with the ongoing damage houserule?

I already mentioned having a maximum number of rounds (something I'd totally do, as well as limiting it to one per round maximum)...in Thaumaturgy's case it'd be limited to one round per shift. So it would still take the full 30+ to kill a guy, you'd just have him dissolve or burn over a minute or so as opposed to explode. Probably a less eficient use all things considered. That's assuming I didn't use Orbius, of course (which I likely would).

The thing is, we HAVE damage as an option. it's already there. Both as burst and continuous damage.

The idea is.. Either you're using fire to hurt them (applying physical stress), or you're using fire to cause some other effect (applying an aspect).

The effects of stress are pretty straightforward, but a temporary aspect is, itself, a form of plot momentum. The story will trend towards certain directions with certain aspects in play.

You're looking to get both stress and an aspect, which gets you double the narrative effect from a single modeled action.

No, that's not what I'm doing at all (and a poisoned weapon already does that, by the way), it's a side effect of what I'm trying to do, which is work ongoing damage in as an aspect of the core system, applicable to as wide a range of different effects as anything else.

[LCDarkwood]

How many shifts would you need with the ongoing damage houserule?

For a normal guy? (Two stress boxes, Mediocre Endurance skill.) Not a whole lot, if we take the Orbius spell as an example. 5 shifts for Superb effect, so he can't resist even with a +4 roll. 7 more for stress track, Mild, Moderate, Severe, and Extreme consequences, then taken out. So, 12 shifts total.

Here's the counterbalance, though: concession. With the killing spell, you do not cash out, pass go, or any of that - you just die. With gradual damage, the option of concession exists to say, "I don't die, but I'm out for the foreseeable future," any time before you succumb to the final blow.


-L

[void]

No, that's not what I'm doing at all (and a poisoned weapon already does that, by the way), it's a side effect of what I'm trying to do, which is work ongoing damage in as an aspect of the core system, applicable to as wide a range of different effects as anything else.

But we already have 'ongoing damage' in the system, as Lenny pointed out.

[Deadmanwalking]

But we already have 'ongoing damage' in the system, as Lenny pointed out.

Right, but no solid way for non-magical types to do it. Which is the problem I'm trying to fix.

[LCDarkwood]

Like I said, it basically looks like a grapple to me, in terms of a combat application for normals. You establish block X, person rolls to defeat block X, takes stress every time they can't. The only "drift" from the rules is the idea of giving the hazard a life of its own, which I'd adjudicate as "the shifts you get on the establishing roll set the difficulty for the block". Grapple even requires, in the RAW, some kind of justifying aspect, so there's your "On Fire!"

So, I want to cover you with napalm. We finally get to the part where we're rolling off. I fire and get an Epic (+7), and you roll a Great (+4) defense. So the hazard is Good (+3), and it hits you until you can overcome it. Maybe I can try to establish it again at higher strength by hitting you again in a later round.

So, that'd be how I'd do it, if it were me, and I controlled a character who wanted to slowly burn people to death.


-Lenny

[void]

Right, but no solid way for non-magical types to do it. Which is the problem I'm trying to fix.

I feel compelled to note that YS325, on environmental effects, explicitly mentions a flamethrower.