Paging Dr. Hicks, Dr. Fred Hicks please

[Morfedel]

One of the things that I've found unique about DFRPG (and Fate by extension) is that it's all about the table coming together to create a story. Sure there's a GM but his job is more to facilitate the creation of drama and adversity, as well as help the others with the rules, etc. He's not god, and he's not the enemy. This attitude is just an extension of that concept. We're all trying to collaborate to create the best story (and storytelling method) we can. An important thing to remember though is that you are one of us, a peer so to speak. If something doesn't work for you or you think you have a better idea, then by all means do what you would like.

One of the things you should remember is that a compel (or invocation for effect) can have many different results. If you put an aspect of "on fire" on a normal person then it's totally logical to compel them (once) to a "taken out" result, like perhaps he's taken out because he's writhing on the ground on fire, or maybe they're badly burned and shock is setting in, etc. In addition you should be able to invoke the aspect in further attacks to increase the damage done as if you're hitting the burned area and causing further damage. Most people are going to try real hard to not be "on fire" anymore so if they're sturdy enough to withstand it originally then likely they'll maneuver soon to remove the aspect.

Or, what, so Compel someone to take consequences automatically? Like "Ok, you've been on fire for one round, I compel you to take a consequence..."  Or go straight to taken out or whatever, is that what you mean?

[sinker]

I was thinking you could compel them to be taken out and it may be justified (depending on who's on fire) but yeah, I suppose you could compel a consequence too.

[iago]

Dr. Fred Hicks is my father.

Me, I'm a guy who has about 10 hours a week, if he's lucky and his 19 month old kid doesn't demand too much attention, to run and grow a fledgling game company while making less than McDonald's employee compensation for doing so. So, no, I won't be showing up on a forum with regularity, unless you can find me the time and pay me a rate equivalent to what my time is worth -- based on my freelance layout work, that might come out to, say, $50 per detailed answer-set like the one today. Totally ball parking it.

The other developers who occasionally find the time to show up and answer a question? Also completely uncompensated for such volunteer efforts.

If that's disappointing to you, I get it. But I can't help you.

[sinker]

I kind of feel bad for Fred. I bet he's getting a lot of emails today.

[Shecky]

As I said, dude's busy.

Morfedel, I really only want to address one thing: the bit where you say you "don't buy the peer authority thing". In a cooperative RPG, peer authority IS the ultimate authority. RPGers not in your group have researched, discussed and hammered out ideas; it'd be foolish to dismiss everything they've produced. And RPGers who are IN your group... well, the game's intended to be an agreement between the players and the GM individually and in concert, so what your peers think very much DOES apply.

Pardon me in advance if the following comes out harshly, but I'm really hoping to pound the point through unmistakably: if you still have a problem with something in the rules, take it to your GM and your partymates. It's counterproductive to keep coming back to Fred with "Yeahbuts" on the same items. In other words, figure it out amongst yourselves. In the end, that's what any RPG group does anyway.

[BumblingBear]

As I said, dude's busy.

Morfedel, I really only want to address one thing: the bit where you say you "don't buy the peer authority thing". In a cooperative RPG, peer authority IS the ultimate authority. RPGers not in your group have researched, discussed and hammered out ideas; it'd be foolish to dismiss everything they've produced. And RPGers who are IN your group... well, the game's intended to be an agreement between the players and the GM individually and in concert, so what your peers think very much DOES apply.

Pardon me in advance if the following comes out harshly, but I'm really hoping to pound the point through unmistakably: if you still have a problem with something in the rules, take it to your GM and your partymates. It's counterproductive to keep coming back to Fred with "Yeahbuts" on the same items. In other words, figure it out amongst yourselves. In the end, that's what any RPG group does anyway.

Yeah... I really don't want this system to be anything at all like D&D where there are so many rules you need a steel book case to contain all the books and some rules contradict each other.

Of all the games I have chosen to sink my time into, this is it... and it's not just because I love the DF.

[bibliophile20]

Yeah... I really don't want this system to be anything at all like D&D where there are so many rules you need a steel book case to contain all the books and some rules contradict each other.

Of all the games I have chosen to sink my time into, this is it... and it's not just because I love the DF.

*snort* 
For D&D, there's a rule for it... somewhere. 
For oWoD, there's not a rule for it, and for the rules that do exist they're unbalanced, and the GM needs to think long and hard on how to houserule.
For Fate?  It says so right in the motto.  "Fudge it."

So I'll definitely agree with you there, BB.  At least in the DFRPG, I don't have to use the rule of thumb that I came up with: don't run a game with more splatbooks than you can hold comfortably in a one-handed grip.

[Shecky]

Hey, even with D&D, there is ALWAYS stuff that needs to be decided/wrangled in-group; ultimately, ANY RPG depends on agreement among the group and between the group and GM. That is, if you want the game not to devolve into rules-lawyering. Fred's just made something that OPENLY uses this truth - that depends on it, in fact.

Rules are neither useful nor a hindrance without an accord among the players and GM. Our D&D group agreed on certain restrictions, and now we're not straitjacketed by the rules.

[bibliophile20]

Oooh boy, I agree with you there, Shecky.  Had a long debate on whether or not you need to kill barbarians twice, last time I ran D&D.  Here, however, houseruling is not just accepted, it's encouraged, and that's a paradigm shift that's rather nice.  I guess I've just had too many games with rules lawyers and munchkins who point to the letter of the rules and ignore the spirit to not feel a little exposed with that. 

[toturi]

Would it be too much to ask for the letter of the rule to be its spirit and there is no need to house rule?

[bibliophile20]

Would it be too much to ask for the letter of the rule to be its spirit and there is no need to house rule?

Yes it is too much to ask, because everyone is going to approach the letter of the rules and the spirit of the rules different as determined by their individual experiences, biases and perspectives.  You cannot have a universal consensus of an interpretation of a written document in any environment where that is true.  Your own arguments in other threads illustrate this better than I can ever attempt to!  For example the recent "Can Luccio use computers since it's her stated hobby?" debate; most people in the thread have agreed that her knowledge is theoretical, or at best, has her empirical/practical knowledge limited to programming code written on paper, but you've been arguing otherwise. 

[toturi]

Yes it is too much to ask, because everyone is going to approach the letter of the rules and the spirit of the rules different as determined by their individual experiences, biases and perspectives.  You cannot have a universal consensus of an interpretation of a written document in any environment where that is true.  Your own arguments in other threads illustrate this better than I can ever attempt to!  For example the recent "Can Luccio use computers since it's her stated hobby?" debate; most people in the thread have agreed that her knowledge is theoretical, or at best, has her empirical/practical knowledge limited to programming code written on paper, but you've been arguing otherwise.  

Since you have chosen to use that debate in another thread as an example, then I think I should submit a rebuttal. In that very thread, I had stated that in the dominant paradigm of mortal wizards of the setting, her knowledge being theoretical was the most plausible explanation. What I have been arguing is that in the context of an alternative idea of hexing (the title of that thread), could we not interpret her statements to be her knowledge only being theorectical?

What I am saying in this thread is wouldn't a product that had less need to house rule be better than one that depended on it being house ruled?

[BumblingBear]

Since you have chosen to use that debate in another thread as an example, then I think I should submit a rebuttal. In that very thread, I had stated that in the dominant paradigm of mortal wizards of the setting, her knowledge being theoretical was the most plausible explanation. What I have been arguing is that in the context of an alternative idea of hexing (the title of that thread), could we not interpret her statements to be her knowledge only being theorectical?

What I am saying in this thread is wouldn't a product that had less need to house rule be better than one that depended on it being house ruled?

Do you do anything in these threads other than argue?  Usually over semantics?

Now that is the question.

[bibliophile20]

Since you have chosen to use that debate in another thread as an example, then I think I should submit a rebuttal. In that very thread, I had stated that in the dominant paradigm of mortal wizards of the setting, her knowledge being theoretical was the most plausible explanation. What I have been arguing is that in the context of an alternative idea of hexing (the title of that thread), could we not interpret her statements to be her knowledge only being theorectical?

You're being obtuse.  I was giving an example, drawn from your own recent postings, on how consensus on the interpretation of the written word is almost impossible, not an excuse for you to draw the argument onto another thread.  But that very difficulty of consensus that you just illustrated--misinterpreting my post as an invitation to explain your exampled argument from another thread instead of seeing it as the intended example--is the reason legal documents are written in the format widely known as "legalese", to eliminate as much ambiguity as possible from the document in question.

What I am saying in this thread is wouldn't a product that had less need to house rule be better than one that depended on it being house ruled?

No.  Not unless it was written by lawyers and proofread by judges.  And even then, there'd be appeals to the bench.  It is simple impossible to eliminate all of the ambiguity in a functional written document to the point that there will be no house rulings.  In fact, by trying to nail down the ambiguities will simply create more, as there is no way you can anticipate every possible situation and contingency--sooner or later, the GM is going to have to rule on something, and in the meantime, you've just made it harder for the GM, as he's now no longer encouraged to use his own judgment.

[Doc Chaos]

Some people seem to forget that it's not about the rules. It's about the story that's being told...