100 shift potions

[luminos]

For NPCs, just use "plot device" excuses for potions that powerful, and make them an important part of whats going on.  For PC's, its a lot easier to stop things from getting out of hand.  They only have a finite amount of points to spend, you can easily rule they can only spend their own, or use free tags from declarations, and you can bump each declaration difficulty up as they repeat the same reason for making different declaractions as a 'boring' tax.  And of course, you can do other normal stuff to mess with them if they want to use it.

[toturi]

So if someone tries to sidestep that, as in Toturi's example, I, personally, would have a talk with them that, if they are particularly stubborn about it, might end with me announcing to the gaming club that there is now an opening.  

EDIT: Really, this is just common gamer courtesy; you do not, or at least should not, try to break the game.  Just as in D&D you do not insist on playing Pun-Pun, or try to cast the Detect City Bomb, or any of those other fun theoretical concepts.  Same here.  No trying to cast ascension rituals and then try to avoid the costs associated. 

It seems that there is a difference on how we are seeing this. While you see this as one gamer out of a group that wants a different game from the rest, I am seeing this as the entire group or a large majority of the players as wanting a different game from what the GM wants, in my example, the GM is the minority. So is he going to do his railroad and make it my-way-or-the-highway or is he going to accomodate his group? I do not think that it is common gamer courtesy to not break the game, I think it is common gamer courtesy to not make the game more difficult for your fellow gamers.

I think it is common GM courtesy to run the game his players want, even if it may not be something he wants. Thus if the group wants Pun-pun, he should run such a game. If the group wants to make the Lady of Pain their bitch, then that's what he should give them. Not play the passive aggressive "I'd give it to you but I am going to make such that you might as well not have it" ploy. If he cannot handle such a game, then he should leave and let someone who can GM.

[devonapple]

If he cannot handle such a game, then he should leave and let someone who can GM.

Sure. but do you feel the rules support 100-shift potions or not?

[Sanctaphrax]

There's a point where the rules simply stop working. Beyond that point, it's not really possible for a GM to run a proper game.

Now, I don't want to give the impression that I have a problem with groups that go past that point, because I don't. But those groups aren't playing the same game as the rest of us, which means that they simply aren't relevant to our discussions of rules.

I mean, you can pretty much throw out the Monster Manual once someone's built Pun-Pun (all-powerful D&D character that exploits poorly-written rules, for those who don't know) because the rules don't matter anymore. A good storyteller might be able to make curbstomping the universe fun, but the rules won't enter into it. The game ends and becomes a story, so to speak.

So please don't say "some groups like this sort of thing" when people are trying to deal with a rules loophole. It's true, but it isn't helpful.

PS: Sorry if that sounded harsh.

[toturi]

So please don't say "some groups like this sort of thing" when people are trying to deal with a rules loophole. 

It is only a loophole if you choose to see it as such. To me it is an artifact of the rules, nothing more.

Sure. but do you feel the rules support 100-shift potions or not?

My personal feeling is that the rules do support such potions, while there is a case to be made either way, but I would allow it. The invocation of Aspects difference for potions are more than sufficient to satisfy the "very good rationale and a ton of baggage" clause.

[sjksprocket]

I think it is common GM courtesy to run the game his players want, even if it may not be something he wants.

No it's not. Everyone should have fun and want to play the game. GM included. You talk about the GM not railroading players. how about the players not railroading a GM? But I guess the argument could be made that why is the gm even running a game if the players and him have such differing gaming paradigms. And vice versa. m2c.

Back on topic:
By my best guess you can make an uber potion with enough run around (But it would take A LOT). I would say a whole adventure for the potion, if not each ingredient. You could potentially make a whole campaign out of it. You have to do mission G for person H to get Item I to give to complete mission J for person K to get information L for mission M Etc..... Just to get the first of the 5(?) items.

[Kaldra]

situations like this are why i GM/DM/Storytell by the seat of my pants, i try and stay knowledgeable on the rules but at the end of the day your the one running the game for the people playing it; if it works for the story and if it works for the group, then go for it. make them work for it but let them try at least. as people have reminded me in this world its more about the rule of cool than the rule of law and at the end of the day its YOUR STORY so go with what works for it.

one last thing to think on if your players want to do it, try but for some reason they dont succeed; there are multiple levels of failure and as some one once said either some guy in Asia or some foot ball player "In great endeavors it is glorious even to fail" or some such thing, so maybe they didnt get the uber potion but they did get a McGuffin... just not the one they were looking for.

[toturi]

No it's not. Everyone should have fun and want to play the game. GM included. You talk about the GM not railroading players. how about the players not railroading a GM?

Then the GM should learn to have fun, instead of asking his players to learn to enjoy his game. The good of the many outweigh the good of the few. 1 GM. Many players. The players cannot railroad their GM, only the GM can railroad and that is why it is common GM courtesy to run the game his players want.

[bibliophile20]

Then the GM should learn to have fun, instead of asking his players to learn to enjoy his game. The good of the many outweigh the good of the few. 1 GM. Many players. The players cannot railroad their GM, only the GM can railroad and that is why it is common GM courtesy to run the game his players want.

How very absolutely democratic of you.  However, the GM is volunteering his time and effort for the others' enjoyment; if the GM is not enjoying the game that they are running, they should walk away.  A GM is, after all, a volunteer, and is he is putting in the lion's share of the work and effort into the game, he should have the lion's share of input. 

And if the players don't like what he's offering to run and willing to run (because of personal taste or preference), then they should find a different GM that is willing to run what is being requested, from their own number if necessary.  And if they are unwilling or unable (not everyone is cut out for GMing, after all) to find a different GM, then the ancient, under-practiced and semi-heretical art of *gasp* compromise should be practiced. 

[toturi]

However, the GM is volunteering his time and effort for the others' enjoyment; if the GM is not enjoying the game that they are running, they should walk away.  A GM is, after all, a volunteer, and is he is putting in the lion's share of the work and effort into the game, he should have the lion's share of input. 

Indeed, and that is precisely what he should be doing. Therefore since he is a volunteer, then he should walk away instead of demanding the lion's share of the enjoyment as if it is his due.

In most other games, you'd be right: the GM is often the one putting in the lion's share of the work and effort, and because of this, he gets the lion's share of input. But not so much as in DFRPG. Indeed, compromised should be practiced, instead of the GM "announcing to the gaming club that there is now an opening". One should practice what one preaches, afterall.

[bibliophile20]

In most other games, you'd be right: the GM is often the one putting in the lion's share of the work and effort, and because of this, he gets the lion's share of input. But not so much as in DFRPG. Indeed, compromised should be practiced, instead of the GM "announcing to the gaming club that there is now an opening". One should practice what one preaches, afterall.

You're taking my line out of context.  That type of announcement would be if the player is being particularly stubborn and completely unwilling to compromise or listen, and is trying to break the game for his own benefit--by, for the example given in that post, trying to perform an ascension ritual and then claim that a newborn god is still a viable player character at just about any power level. 

[toturi]

You're taking my line out of context.  That type of announcement would be if the player is being particularly stubborn and completely unwilling to compromise or listen, and is trying to break the game for his own benefit--by, for the example given in that post, trying to perform an ascension ritual and then claim that a newborn god is still a viable player character at just about any power level.  

Yes, but if that is what the players want, that they want to perform such an ascension ritual and accept that one of their number is a viable player character despite his new power level, should you not compromise and allow it?

Therefore in the context of that being what the players' (or a majority of them) want, what would you do? Remember in my example which you referenced in the quote that you claimed I took out of context, it has always been the players that want such a thing (as opposed to a single player wanting something that the other players do not).

[bibliophile20]

Then if that is what they want, then that is when I walk away.  Simple as that. 

[CGregory]

If 100 shift potions are possible then why aren't all the NPC wizards running around with them?  I'd certainly expect something that powerful to be mentioned in the White Council's stats. If an ascension was as easy as making any old potion then Kelmer's apprentices would never needed to bother with creating a Darkhallow.

Seems more reasonable that the Lore x2 limit is in effect for potions as well as items.  (BTW page 400 defines a potion as an Enchanted item, so it is not unreasonable to rule potions have the same limitations as enchanted items unless specifically stated otherwise.)

Yes, but if that is what the players want, that they want to perform such an ascension ritual and accept that one of their number is a viable player character despite his new power level, should you not compromise and allow it?

No, that's not compromising.  Compromising is about give and take, you are asking the GM to do all the giving.  A compromise would be allowing the player to perform the ascension ritual as part of a campaign arc.  Something that would required one or more major milestones to complete. 

[toturi]

No, that's not compromising.  Compromising is about give and take, you are asking the GM to do all the giving.  A compromise would be allowing the player to perform the ascension ritual as part of a campaign arc.  Something that would required one or more major milestones to complete. 

I agree that allowing the player to perform the ascension ritual as part of a campaign arc would be a compromise. The 100 shift potion could be a part of that ritual. What is important is that the players are allowed to do so in the first place.