Author Topic: Damage vs. Bypass: Expanding the Catch  (Read 9887 times)

Offline Deadmanwalking

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3534
    • View Profile
Re: Damage vs. Bypass: Expanding the Catch
« Reply #15 on: June 25, 2010, 07:47:21 AM »
No, they don't. But then, Harry doesn't seem to have limitless supplies of Holy Water either, and it's never stated what is needed to make it.

Offline aardvark

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Damage vs. Bypass: Expanding the Catch
« Reply #16 on: June 25, 2010, 09:34:37 AM »
Yep, every time a disadvantage of being your type of critter comes up, it's a Compel of your High Concept, even if it's due to a disadvantage like a Catch. Some of them aren't Compels you can buy off, but you always get the Fate Point.

So, my High Concept is a Wizard of the White Coucel. I trying to kill a human with pistol instead of my magic, because im affraid breaking LoM. This is selfcompel against my High Concept or not?
Im kinda lost in here.

Offline Deadmanwalking

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3534
    • View Profile
Re: Damage vs. Bypass: Expanding the Catch
« Reply #17 on: June 25, 2010, 09:55:34 AM »
Hmmm. Yeah, that is indeed a Self-Compel. You're a member of the White council and thus limited from using your most potent weapon, you get a Fate Point.  :)

Offline kustenjaeger

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: Damage vs. Bypass: Expanding the Catch
« Reply #18 on: June 25, 2010, 10:08:42 AM »
Greetings

Holy water as a means of repelling evil appears - in the real world - to be exclusively a Roman Catholic tradition. Not sure if this is the case in the DV.  Basically priests and bishops sanctify holy water (usually for a font or smaller vessel).  I'd expect a priest being asked to bless a load of holy water would want to know what was going on and would have to be 'in the know' in order to agree.

Regards

Edward

Offline luminos

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1234
  • Um... Hello?
    • View Profile
Re: Damage vs. Bypass: Expanding the Catch
« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2010, 10:15:32 AM »
So, my High Concept is a Wizard of the White Coucel. I trying to kill a human with pistol instead of my magic, because im affraid breaking LoM. This is selfcompel against my High Concept or not?
Im kinda lost in here.

Are you kidding me?  Your options aren't limited, they simple have pre-determined consequences attached to them.  The reason you don't use magic in that situation is because its a bad idea.  Not because you are restricting your character.  Christ, why don't you give a pure mortal a self-compel every scene because he chooses not to break mundane laws?
Lawful Chaotic

Offline Deadmanwalking

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3534
    • View Profile
Re: Damage vs. Bypass: Expanding the Catch
« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2010, 10:21:46 AM »
Are you kidding me?  Your options aren't limited, they simple have pre-determined consequences attached to them.  The reason you don't use magic in that situation is because its a bad idea.  Not because you are restricting your character.  Christ, why don't you give a pure mortal a self-compel every scene because he chooses not to break mundane laws?

I'd give Murphy a Compel on her High Concept every time obeying the mortal law gets her in some trouble, yeah. Very similar situation.

Offline luminos

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1234
  • Um... Hello?
    • View Profile
Re: Damage vs. Bypass: Expanding the Catch
« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2010, 10:38:14 AM »
Well, this is what my thinking is going into the issue:  The laws of magic are a static fixture of the universe.  They are a known quantity.  They are built into the rules of the magic system of the game.  They are an internal issue, not subject to compels just for acknowledging they exist. 

But okay, maybe you do give fate points for working around them.  I believe this leads to a problem, specifically given the way you have stated you deal with the laws in the past.  You say that if someone is doing something that would break one of the laws, you offer them a compel to actually break them, and if they buy it off, they don't actually break the law (or at least the first law).  If you are consistent in the way you give fate points, then anyone using a wizard with you as a GM can conveniently choose to ignore the first law entirely with a nifty little work around.  They choose to use non-magic methods against pure mortals at first to gain the self-compelled fate point.  Then, if that amount of force is sufficient to deal with the problem, they have a fate point and no problem.  If it is not sufficient, they blow the mortals out with a devastating magic attack and use the earlier self-compelled fate point to buy off the lawbreaker stunt.
Lawful Chaotic

Offline Deadmanwalking

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3534
    • View Profile
Re: Damage vs. Bypass: Expanding the Catch
« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2010, 10:46:24 AM »
In theory, that would indeed work.


But I'm a person, not a computer, and, frankly, the best rules lawyer I know. If anyone was trying this as opposed to actually roleplaying I'd know, and I'd come down on them like a ton of bricks.



Also, and more importantly, I wouldn't give anyone a self-compel to use a gun to execute a tied down mortal or something...I'd allow some ppeople a Compel if they avoided using magic (or at least direct magical attacks) entirely in that fight for fear of breaking the Laws. And even that only if they have an Aspect meaning they're a great respecter of the Laws (which Wizard of the White Council certainly is). He's a Wizard, he wouldn't do that.

My Changeling Troubleshooter meanwhile totally WOULD do that, and only fear of the consequences (Lawbreaker and the Wardens) prevents him...he gets no Compels of that sort. It all depends on the character.

Offline CMEast

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 468
    • View Profile
Re: Damage vs. Bypass: Expanding the Catch
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2010, 10:50:43 AM »
I'd argue that the wizard has the option of using magic and so isn't compelled not to. If the high concept was 'Oath-Sworn Sorcerer', the oath being that they'd never ever use magic on a mortal, and if they didn't have a gun or any other way to stop the human then THAT would be a compel. If the wizard prepares for mortal encounters by carrying a gun around, they shouldn't get a fate point.

In the same way, mortals can choose to break the laws generally, however if the PC was a paladin equivalent then they'd get a fate point for avoiding the easy route and breaking the law.

To earn a fate point, they must be literally compelled to act in a certain way, and that action should definitely be one that they wouldn't want to take as it costs them. Either they do something stupid, or they can't do something that'd be useful, because of their nature.

Offline luminos

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1234
  • Um... Hello?
    • View Profile
Re: Damage vs. Bypass: Expanding the Catch
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2010, 11:05:40 AM »
I'm not trying to create an argument on this, just putting some refinement into the way I think of things:  In general, I don't believe that a compel should be given simply for facts that are pre-existing.  The laws of magic are simply facts, and ones which the players are aware of well in advance.  I would no more give a fate point for acceding to those laws to a wizard than I would give a mortal a fate point for his inability to ignore gravity.
Lawful Chaotic

Offline crusher_bob

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 538
    • View Profile
Re: Damage vs. Bypass: Expanding the Catch
« Reply #25 on: June 25, 2010, 11:18:00 AM »
I'd interpret at least some of the stuff Harry comes up with as potions, rather than mundane stuff.

For example, when he "just happens" to have a holy water balloon to take on a blampire, that him succeeding in a lore roll to have the right kind of potion on hand.  This also covers why Harry doesn't always have holy water on him,  I'm sure Father Forthill would probably will willing to bless a super-soaker full on a pretty regular basis...  Or when Kincaid gives him the paintball gun full of garlic (or whatever it was); easiest to implement as a potion again.

Of course, you run into a problem with mundane characters wanting to do the same sort of thing.  If the ability is done rules wise as something they just happen to have and not a totally one-off event, then that's probably worth refresh, with maybe an effect total based on the characters contacts or resources or something.  A techie character that pays a refresh point for the ability to just 'happen to have a" (cell phone, GPS, walkie-talkie, UV light emitter, business card copier, or whatever) is well within the rules space.

Offline DFJunkie

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 624
    • View Profile
Re: Damage vs. Bypass: Expanding the Catch
« Reply #26 on: June 25, 2010, 11:22:38 AM »
Quote
I'd interpret at least some of the stuff Harry comes up with as potions, rather than mundane stuff.

Nah, when he and Thomas are attacked by the blampires at the beginning of Blood Rites Harry just busts a fate point to have the holy water balloons handy.  It's perfectly reasonable that someone in his position would have them in his car.
90% of what I say is hyperbole intended for humorous effect.  Don't take me seriously. I don't.

Offline jalrin

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: Damage vs. Bypass: Expanding the Catch
« Reply #27 on: June 25, 2010, 11:31:19 AM »
Deadman is right.  If a character's high concept as a wizard of the White Council it means that there character concept requires them to be faithful to the laws of magic in a way that a sorcerer or an "independent" wizard a la Elaine is not.  Especially if we are going to implement one of the anti-evocation house rules that we have been floating around here, following such a high concept with the negative baggage it employs needs (the extra oversight from the wardens that wizards get for example) needs to be balanced with compels to make it work.

Offline Deadmanwalking

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3534
    • View Profile
Re: Damage vs. Bypass: Expanding the Catch
« Reply #28 on: June 25, 2010, 11:33:58 AM »
I'm not trying to create an argument on this, just putting some refinement into the way I think of things:  In general, I don't believe that a compel should be given simply for facts that are pre-existing.  The laws of magic are simply facts, and ones which the players are aware of well in advance.  I would no more give a fate point for acceding to those laws to a wizard than I would give a mortal a fate point for his inability to ignore gravity.

And I can see that point...but Fred's gone on record as saying that Lycanthropes DO get FP whenever it's not the Full Moon but their powers would be useful...so there's clearly a line past which even something that is a "pre-existing fact" gives Fate Points.


As for Holy Water, I'm not saying you need True Faith to have actual Holy Water...but you need a supplier with True Faith. Your supplier is then an NPC, a potent and useful plot hook who's ass you may need to pull out of the fire one of these days. I have a perfectly ordinary Pure Mortal in my game who has more Holy Stuff than you can shake a stick at...and a kickass In The Know supplier...who may well be the impetus for the entire plot of Book 3.

Isn't that more fun than either not having it or having it be easy to get?

Offline kustenjaeger

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: Damage vs. Bypass: Expanding the Catch
« Reply #29 on: June 25, 2010, 11:52:11 AM »
Greetings

And I can see that point...but Fred's gone on record as saying that Lycanthropes DO get FP whenever it's not the Full Moon but their powers would be useful...so there's clearly a line past which even something that is a "pre-existing fact" gives Fate Points.


As for Holy Water, I'm not saying you need True Faith to have actual Holy Water...but you need a supplier with True Faith. Your supplier is then an NPC, a potent and useful plot hook who's ass you may need to pull out of the fire one of these days. I have a perfectly ordinary Pure Mortal in my game who has more Holy Stuff than you can shake a stick at...and a kickass In The Know supplier...who may well be the impetus for the entire plot of Book 3.

Isn't that more fun than either not having it or having it be easy to get?

1. My take is that there'll be times the Wizard's high concept gets compelled by the LoM and times it won't.  If you're actively not using the optimum specific power to avoid breaching LoM then it's probably fair enough to gain a compel.  If you could usefully apply your magic another way then I'd be less convinced.  There's often quite an impact from killing someone anyway, whoever you are, however you do it:  police investigations, PTSD.

2. I like the balance on the holy water front - you've got a justification that links into plot elements.

Regards

Edward