Newbie Dresden GM looking for advice/answers to rules questions

[JesterPoet]

I ran my first session of Dresden last night, and it went okay.  I'm still having trouble getting a handle on the rule system, and my players have never played before, so there's going to be a bit of a learning curve.

I have a couple of questions about things that came up during the game.  I don't have access to my books right now, but I feel the need for instant gratification, so I'm hoping maybe I can get some answers here.  If anyone can offer suggestions, I'd be very thankful.

1) In one scene, the two characters (A wizard and a meteomancer, i.e. weather-focused practitioner) were ambushed by thugs in an alley.  I gave the thugs each two physical slots, and fists (+2) and weapons (+2).  There were 4 thugs altogether.  Their purpose was to scare the PCs, but I wanted them to get defeated.  They got in one cheap shot (but a substantial one) on the wizard right away, because he had no dodge skill, so he rolled it at mediocre, and left him with a moderate consequence.  Then in the first exchange, he put an air shield in front of his apprentice (the meteomancer), and she then used her intimidate skill on the thugs.  Here's where I'm not sure about things.  We played the intimidate as a mental attack against the thugs' conviction.  I'm not sure if that was right.  We also couldn't figure out how to adjust the shifts needed for her to target all of the enemies in the zone.  I looked and looked, but couldn't find it.  In the end, I just used the same rules used for putting a block in front of multiple allies.

Can someone tell me if this should have been a mental attack?  If so, did we use the right skill for defense (which the thugs had at mediocre), and what should I have done about her targeting multiple opponents?

Also, do players know all the obvious aspects on a scene, or do they have to discover them?  What about the NPCs (not that these guys had any fate points anyway, but I'm just curious)?

2) They tracked the ambush to a drug dealer on Broadway.  He didn't give up much information (due to a stunning success on his conviction roll to defend against intimidation), but they decided to follow him.  The meteomancer wanted to use her magic to use cloud cover to make it darker, putting an aspect on the scene that she could tag to improve her stealth roll.  She ended up spending a fate point and making a declaration, but could she have done it with a skill roll?  If so, what?

I'm sure I'll have more questions as I think of them throughout the day, but this is what I have off the top of my head.  Again, any help is appreciated.  I really love this system, but I'm having a hard time with it.  It's been a long time since I had to learn a system from scratch!

[Masurao]

Also, do players know all the obvious aspects on a scene, or do they have to discover them?  What about the NPCs (not that these guys had any fate points anyway, but I'm just curious)?

2) They tracked the ambush to a drug dealer on Broadway.  He didn't give up much information (due to a stunning success on his conviction roll to defend against intimidation), but they decided to follow him.  The meteomancer wanted to use her magic to use cloud cover to make it darker, putting an aspect on the scene that she could tag to improve her stealth roll.  She ended up spending a fate point and making a declaration, but could she have done it with a skill roll?  If so, what?

I'm sure I'll have more questions as I think of them throughout the day, but this is what I have off the top of my head.  Again, any help is appreciated.  I really love this system, but I'm having a hard time with it.  It's been a long time since I had to learn a system from scratch!

The players can discovers aspects on a scene, but they might also 'guess' them. In your alley example, they might have put a FP forward and said, "I bet this alley is Filled with Shadows, I want to use it help my Stealth. Then you either accept the FP, or you give it back and say, "Actually, there's a lot of restaurants who have their exits herre, so it's rather well-lit." Just to give you an idea. (This is 'guessing aspects', YS113)

I believe that your character would have gotten her first tag on the Foggy aspect free, because she created it with a maneuver (through magic). If it was a sticky aspect (i.e. she got extra shifts on her roll), she and others could tag as normal, by paying an FP. She would have made a Thaumaturgy (or possibly Evocation) roll to make a maneuver and place the Foggy aspect on the scene and get a free tag for it. (Maneuvers, YS207)

A declaration is a player made-up aspect on a scene or NPC, for which he/she must make a roll, often with a passive skill (like Alertness). (YS116)

About your intimidation, I guess this would be a Social combat thingy... Perhaps a roll at -2 to affect an entire zone at once (or, reversely requiring 2 extra shifts of success). But this is not yet my area of expertise

[JesterPoet]

I believe that your character would have gotten her first tag on the Foggy aspect free, because she created it with a maneuver (through magic). If it was a sticky aspect (i.e. she got extra shifts on her roll), she and others could tag as normal, by paying an FP. She would have made a Thaumaturgy (or possibly Evocation) roll to make a maneuver and place the Foggy aspect on the scene and get a free tag for it. (Maneuvers, YS207)

So if she used magic for it, how would the roll play out?  Unlike a combat spell, she's not really rolling against anything (she would have been using evocation based on time constraints).  So she would have decided how many shifts to power the spell with and then make her discipline roll, and anything above the power would make it sticky?

[Masurao]

If I have learned correctly from books and this forum, you need 3 shifts to put a maneuver on a scene or someone. Since this roll is, indeed, usually not being defended against, you need to look at the character and the situation and decide whether or not rolling is really necessary. If she is being hassled, have her roll Discipline as normal, if she has a bit of time, just allow her to make the maneuver. Then again, if her Discipline is +3, a Mediocre roll would only give her a fragile aspect, so then you ask her to roll and see if she can make the aspect sticky (she needs at least one (1) extra shift).

[UmbraLux]

Here's where I'm not sure about things.  We played the intimidate as a mental attack against the thugs' conviction.  I'm not sure if that was right. 

I'd probably have classified the intimidation as a maneuver rather than an attack - though that does depend on how the player describes it.  As a maneuver your players could have tagged it for a bonus on a future attack.

We also couldn't figure out how to adjust the shifts needed for her to target all of the enemies in the zone.  I looked and looked, but couldn't find it.  In the end, I just used the same rules used for putting a block in front of multiple allies.

There are basically two methods of targeting multiple people:  spray attacks and zone wide attacks.  With a magical spray attack you split the power of the spell between targets.  A zone wide magical attack would cost two shifts of power...and potentially affect allies.

Can someone tell me if this should have been a mental attack?  If so, did we use the right skill for defense (which the thugs had at mediocre), and what should I have done about her targeting multiple opponents?

Discipline is the default mental defense but there is no "single right answer" to defensive skill choice.  It really depends on trappings.  If the thugs were cultists using faith to resist fear Conviction would be appropriate. 

Also, do players know all the obvious aspects on a scene, or do they have to discover them?  What about the NPCs (not that these guys had any fate points anyway, but I'm just curious)?

They should know the obvious aspects.  Raining, darkness, slippery concrete, narrow alley, on fire, etc - those are obvious to anyone.  The "camera over the restaurant's back door" may not be obvious if concealed. 

2) They tracked the ambush to a drug dealer on Broadway.  He didn't give up much information (due to a stunning success on his conviction roll to defend against intimidation), but they decided to follow him.  The meteomancer wanted to use her magic to use cloud cover to make it darker, putting an aspect on the scene that she could tag to improve her stealth roll.  She ended up spending a fate point and making a declaration, but could she have done it with a skill roll?  If so, what?

A declaration as you did it works well.  Presuming she has some amount of weather magic it could also have been a spell to create an aspect by maneuver.  Assuming she had a few minutes, it would have been a good moment for a quick thaumaturgy spell calling the clouds.

So if she used magic for it, how would the roll play out?  Unlike a combat spell, she's not really rolling against anything (she would have been using evocation based on time constraints).  So she would have decided how many shifts to power the spell with and then make her discipline roll, and anything above the power would make it sticky?

Using evocation, I'd recommend a weather based veil.  You could run it as a maneuver if you preferred, that would cost 3 for the aspect plus 1 to make it sticky giving you a plus two on your stealth roll.  The veil on the other hand would create a 4 (if using the same number of power shifts as the maneuver) block against perception...and you take the better of the veil or your stealth roll when someone attempts to penetrate the veil.

[JesterPoet]

I'd probably have classified the intimidation as a maneuver rather than an attack - though that does depend on how the player describes it. 

I thought about that, but her description was to let "lightning" flicker off her fingertips and out of her hair and tell them/show them that they're out of their league.  It seemed that her intention was to take them out.  That said, once they were "taken out," deciding what to do with that was a little wonky, so maybe a maneuver would be better.

There are basically two methods of targeting multiple people:  spray attacks and zone wide attacks.  With a magical spray attack you split the power of the spell between targets.  A zone wide magical attack would cost two shifts of power...and potentially affect allies.

This wasn't really a magical attack, though.  It was a mental conflict.  I'm guessing in that case spray attack wouldn't work, but zone-wide would, which, iirc, is what I did, though I may have had the number of shifts at 3.

Discipline is the default mental defense but there is no "single right answer" to defensive skill choice.  It really depends on trappings.  If the thugs were cultists using faith to resist fear Conviction would be appropriate. 

And since they had no mental bubbles, any success automatically takes them out, right?

Using evocation, I'd recommend a weather based veil.  You could run it as a maneuver if you preferred, that would cost 3 for the aspect plus 1 to make it sticky giving you a plus two on your stealth roll.  The veil on the other hand would create a 4 (if using the same number of power shifts as the maneuver) block against perception...and you take the better of the veil or your stealth roll when someone attempts to penetrate the veil.

Damn... a veil would have made sense.  I wish I'd thought of that.  There's just so much to keep track of.

[Sanctaphrax]

It is impossible to have no mental stress track.

The rules for targeting multiple people with a social attack are not well defined. I recommend you make something up.

[Arcmagik]

Based on my experiences with the system so far and that is by no means extensive... but you can play an Intimidation three different ways, the first method is using it to play a maneuver on the thugs we will call it "Riddled with Fear" that she could tag for free on any of the thugs or pass to the Wizard.  The second way and the one I believe you used is intimidating them so badly that they have to roll to even act against the character, and that is a Block, with the Block Strength being what they have to roll again.

The last method and the one that seems most supported by the rules is that Intimidate is a Social Attack (See the Intimidate skill and the Social Attack trappings). It does Social Stress. They would have likely been taken out all the same as if it was a Mental conflict, and if they were taken out then the Meteomancer gets to describe (with approval from GM as its a give and take thing) how they were taken out.

Also... everyone always has 2 stress boxes for each physical, mental, and social if they are low-threat thugs and don't take consequences then any attacks over 2 stress will take them out. They get more for having a higher skill in Endurance, Disciple, and Presence.

As for the zone-wide effect I would follow the rules under magic!

[UmbraLux]

And since they had no mental bubbles, any success automatically takes them out, right?

They should have at least 2 stress even with 0 Discipline.  As for "taken out" - that's a possibility though I usually call it a concession unless they're going through all of their consequences.  Low level mooks conceding rather than taking consequences does make sense.  It's like the ganger looking around, not seeing the backup he wanted, and taking off with one last comment...

Damn... a veil would have made sense.  I wish I'd thought of that.  There's just so much to keep track of.

There can be a lot of details to track.  Just remember, there are really only three possible actions:  attack, block, and create / discover an aspect.  Just about everything can be broken down to one or more of those three components. 

[devonapple]

There are a couple of RAW or RAW-compliant ways to handle social conflicts. Then there is a FATE hack way to do it.

The RAW-compliant ways:
1) Determine the "leader" for each group (thugs and PCs), someone who is the best "social" opponent. Only these leaders can make Social Attacks (dealing Social stress to the opposing leader). Anyone who isn't the leader can make their own Maneuvers which the leader can tag for a Social Attack/Block/Defense/etc., but nobody but the leader can actually deal Stress in the conflict. This method means you don't really have to use Spray or Zonewide social attacks: you are aiming them where they count, at the opposing leader. When a leader is Taken Out, then the conflict ends. This makes it a little more fair for a tough solitary opponent to conflict with a group.

2) Free-for-All. Everyone can attack everyone socially. You have to Take Out each opponent to ultimately end the conflict. In this case, Spray social actions are difficult to pull off, but most appropriate, since a Zonewide action (only costs 2 shifts) would have to affect any allies in the area, which is just not plausible.

Then, the hack is to use the Minion rules from Spirit of the Century. A group of Thugs would be treated as one entity, making one attack per Exchange (with a bonus for their greater numbers). All of their stress boxes are combined, and when they take Stress, you cross off their stress boxes like Hit Points (take 3 stress = place an X in the first 3 stress boxes) and not like you do ordinarily in DFRPG. Each time you do enough stress to have taken out one of the minions, they are gone and don't provide a bonus to the group. This one is problematic if you want there to be both Physical and Social ways to end the conflict: it works best with one stress track based on the minions' specialty (physical for Thugs, social for sycophants, mental for... I dunno, torturers). You could also just give them an all-purpose "Stress" track, and rule that Social Attacks *and* Physical Attacks both deal stress to the same track, alternately discouraging and/or defeating the Minions.

[JesterPoet]

This feedback has all been very helpful!  Thanks to everyone!

[JesterPoet]

They should have at least 2 stress even with 0 Discipline.  As for "taken out" - that's a possibility though I usually call it a concession unless they're going through all of their consequences.  Low level mooks conceding rather than taking consequences does make sense.  It's like the ganger looking around, not seeing the backup he wanted, and taking off with one last comment...

Yeah, that's pretty much what happened.  She did well above two stress anyway, and they actually conceded, as they took off...

[sinker]

Something I would point out is that once a roll is made a Concession is impossible. Even if you are choosing to not take any consequences you are still being taken out and thus have no say in how that happens. You may be conceding by the definition of the word, however using the DFRPG terminology you can't "Concede" you are "Taken out."

As for intimidating others I tend to reserve mental stress for very rare occasions. If you read the section on mental conflicts on YS217-219 you get the idea that it requires one of a few things. 1) Mind magic, 2) A close relationship to the target, or 3) Specific training to be able to do so (with the intimidation skill). I see that as either coming from years of study of the human psyche, or from training in torture tactics. Likely a stunt either way. Otherwise I figure intimidation does social attacks, as explained in the skill description.

Area social attacks are just stumping me right now, however something to note is that social/mental zones are different from physical zones, so it's not all that weird to have a zone-wide social attack that doesn't effect your allies (because they aren't in the same social zone).

[devonapple]

As for intimidating others I tend to reserve mental stress for very rare occasions...

Good point - I've amended my reply above.

Area social attacks are just stumping me right now, however something to note is that social/mental zones are different from physical zones, so it's not all that weird to have a zone-wide social attack that doesn't effect your allies (because they aren't in the same social zone).

My fear is that it could be too easily abused to let social conflicts sidestep the limitations of physical conflicts - and Social Consequences can actually be the hardest ones to work off.

[sinker]

I'm not trying to say that social zones are limited to sides of a conflict, just that they have different definitions that could include either/both/none of those things. I would think that how one made the attack would probably define those zones.