Targeting and control....

[sinker]

Originally I was with Mr. Death on this one (and probably still would be in any other system), but the more I think about it, this system has whole mechanics built around failing safely. If you wind up spending resources recklessly then it sucks, but it's not your death. There are concessions and even if you're taken out the result is often not detrimental to the story. This gives you some freedom to fail, and I think I like that (and in this case I would take advantage of it).

If they didn't, we might as well be playing a diceless (see: boring) system.

I wonder if you have ever played a diceless system? Some of my best games happened diceless. If you're a fan of Roger Zelazny (or even a fan of interesting game mechanics) I suggest you check out the Amber Diceless RPG. Here's a link to it on DriveThruRPG.

[Orladdin]

I wonder if you have ever played a diceless system? Some of my best games happened diceless. If you're a fan of Roger Zelazny (or even a fan of interesting game mechanics) I suggest you check out the Amber Diceless RPG. Here's a link to it on DriveThruRPG.

Yeah, I've played a few. 

I used to love the Marvel RPG that came out near the turn of the millenium that used stones for effort and had no random element.  The only thing was, I kept thinking to myself, "Wow, this could be so much better if things weren't guaranteed to turn out the same way every time.  This could be so much better with dice somehow."  I've considered running it again and adding fudge dice to the game.  It'd probably be a blast.

While I've not played Amber, other members of my gaming group have.  They were even fans of the books.  They said it was not as interesting of a game as they'd hoped and never even finished their first play-by-post campaign.

[Mr. Death]

Originally I was with Mr. Death on this one (and probably still would be in any other system), but the more I think about it, this system has whole mechanics built around failing safely. If you wind up spending resources recklessly then it sucks, but it's not your death. There are concessions and even if you're taken out the result is often not detrimental to the story. This gives you some freedom to fail, and I think I like that (and in this case I would take advantage of it).

The way I look at it, if the character spends effort and resources and still fails, that's good drama and natural in the course of the story. If the player ends up spending resources that go to waste, that's frustrating and not as fun. Sure, bad rolls will happen, but I think a player shouldn't end up using up his valuable resources (Fate points, etc) when it's impossible for them to do him any good.

The game is, above all else, about choice. If a player doesn't know what he has to aim for, his ability to choose is curtailed.

[sinker]

If the player ends up spending resources that go to waste, that's frustrating and not as fun.

I think it depends on the situation. In my second game with my local group there was a situation where the bad guy was badly wounded but about to get away, and I was the only one who had thought to cover that exit. It came down to one last shot. I rolled terribly... So I spent a fate point to re-roll and rolled even worse. I spent another fate point only to get a mediocre roll. I spent my last point just to bring it up to +2 or +3... and they dodged. While it did rankle a bit there was a part of me that felt good about the struggle, that could laugh at the whole situation. We all commiserated afterwards and vowed to take that sneaky bastard down the next time we saw him. And afterwards I refreshed (or was compelled) and I had more fate points, no worries. Life (or pretend life) went on.

[wyvern]

Yeah, the fate point for a reroll does stand out a bit differently.  In the case you described, had I been GMing, I would have refunded the last fate point... but not the two spent on re-rolls.

[Mr. Death]

This is probably me being overly generous, but if one of my players invokes for a reroll and their own roll ends up worse (or the same), I give them the option to just take the +2 instead before I roll whatever other dice were in play. This is admittedly rare; if they're invoking for a straight up reroll, it's usually because they rolled something like -3 or -4, and the opponent rolled +2 or so, so simple law of averages usually ensures the resulting roll's at least a little better. But as I've said before, I'm usually of the belief that a fate point spent should have a tangible benefit.

[sinker]

Additionally it should be pointed out that I was frustrated with the dice (which is ok) and definitely not the GM (which is not).

Now that I think about it though, the backlash situation is a bit different. It's hard to make a judgement on that when we can't see the entire scope of the question. For example did the backlash directly cause you to fail the conflict? What other actions had been taken thus far and what actions were taken afterward? If you hadn't taken backlash would it merely have prolonged your defeat or could it have shifted the balance? It's tough to know how much of an impact that had on the situation as a whole.

I think what I would say overall is that I would probably do different things in different situations, but it's important to say that it is not the GM's responsibility to make sure the player's resources are spent wisely. If he feels the situation was too bad for the player then maybe he can give the player a break, but I don't think he should under all (or even most) circumstances.

[devonapple]

Additionally it should be pointed out that I was frustrated with the dice (which is ok) and definitely not the GM (which is not).

Now that I think about it though, the backlash situation is a bit different. It's hard to make a judgement on that when we can't see the entire scope of the question. For example did the backlash directly cause you to fail the conflict? What other actions had been taken thus far and what actions were taken afterward? If you hadn't taken backlash would it merely have prolonged your defeat or could it have shifted the balance? It's tough to know how much of an impact that had on the situation as a whole.

I think what I would say overall is that I would probably do different things in different situations, but it's important to say that it is not the GM's responsibility to make sure the player's resources are spent wisely. If he feels the situation was too bad for the player then maybe he can give the player a break, but I don't think he should under all (or even most) circumstances.

If I had it to do again, My PC would still take the backlash: bursting the water pipes in the new age store was an undesirable outcome compared to my wizard just getting mangled.

The way it happened:
Alone at his new age store job, my PC is getting his ear chewed off by a Wiccan wannabe (and my Lore check said there was nothing magical about her).
Gunshots outside drew my character to the doorway (after ordering the customer to hide in the back) where he carefully tried to assess the situation without getting shot.

Customer turned out to be a Ghoul, who attacked the PC.
I used my one remaining Fate point to invoke an Aspect which resulted in the PC not being taken by surprise.
Ghoul and Wizard exchange attacks. He gets in one good attack, but I'm losing the war of attrition, and my wizard is running out of uses for his equivalent of Harry's duster.

Having taken some Physical stress, a lot of Mental stress, and one 4-point Consequence, I resolved that the PC had to lay some Maneuvers on the Ghoul. Declaration rolls weren't going well, and the GM was insisting on Fate points for some of them.
So then I marked my highest stress box to cast a 6-shift supercharged Evocation Maneuver, but rolled -3 on the dice, for a Discipline roll of +0.
I had been planning to tag a previous successful Declaration to make sure the attack hit, but instead I tagged it to reroll that terrible roll. I got a -1, which still meant a Discipline roll of 2, leaving me 4 stress to either release as Fallout or take as Backlash.

I had the PC take it as Backlash, and then the GM rolled Athletics. With an effective targeting roll of 2, the attack roll missed (safely). The next exchange, the Ghoul tagged my PC's "Shredded Arms" Consequence for a bonus to hit, and when I saw it was going to far exceed the wizard's available Physical stress, I knew I could either take a 6-point Consequence, or Concede: I opted to Concede, and it worked out.

[sinker]

Yeah, in that particular instance it sounds like it would not have made a significant difference, that you were probably headed for a concession in the first place. I suppose a generous GM would take the unnecessary backlash into account when handing out fate points for your concession. It also sounds like you were not terribly frustrated with the outcome.

[devonapple]

I was somewhat frustrated with the outcome. I'm a Wizard, darnit, and I'd like to be able to take out one Ghoul. But the dice were against me, and my Fate Points were low.

That said, I had retooled my array of Enchanted items, and they worked as well as could be expected (though the wizard never got a chance to wield his Whip of Shadows, as he was too busy trying to lay maneuvers).

In hindsight, he should have just Veiled on round 1 and spend the combat laying Maneuvers without taking hits.

[UmbraLux]

One other item for you to look at devonapple - rotes.  Blocks and maneuvers make the best rotes (IMO) and a maneuver rote would have avoided backlash...even if your targeting roll missed.  (Assuming you had to make a roll for some reason.)

[devonapple]

Oh, I totally had a rote for that, UmbraLux, but I needed to land it, so I opted for a stronger Evocation.

Edit: in fact, I'd already cast a rote (an Ice Block, which missed).

[GryMor]

You still make targeting rolls on rotes with all the same modifiers, so you shouldn't have an easier time landing a non rote than a rote. Or maybe I'm missing something?

Edit: Right, miss remembering something. For some reason I had it stuck in my head that it was 3 or appropriate defensive skill for base power, with more for duration, but that actual defensive roll was against targeting... I even see why I got that idea *sigh* (YS pg 252)

[UmbraLux]

You still make targeting rolls on rotes with all the same modifiers, so you shouldn't have an easier time landing a non rote than a rote. Or maybe I'm missing something?

You make targeting rolls if it's an attack.  Blocks and maneuvers will simply be opposed based on their power.  Or unopposed if targeted at yourself or an ally.

[devonapple]

You make targeting rolls if it's an attack.  Blocks and maneuvers will simply be opposed based on their power.  Or unopposed if targeted at yourself or an ally.

So if I successfully cast a 6-shift Maneuver, does the target defend against my Targeting roll, the Maneuver strength, or both together? I'm trying to remember what my motivation *is* for casting stronger Maneuvers.