Does the DresdenVerse default to Ultimate Good or Ultimate Evil?

[Silverblaze]

If they'd wanted NPC powers to exist, they should have made such a distinction. As it stands, there's no such thing as an NPC power, just powers.

That is a matter of willfulling ignoring intent in my opinion.

[Viatos]

That is a matter of willfulling ignoring intent in my opinion.

Could you provide any citation that suggests intent for such a thing as an "NPC Power" to exist?

I can cite half the book suggesting that such intent is completely the opposite of what the authors wanted. If powers were not meant to be accessible to players, they would not be tagged with Refresh costs, placed in the player section, and noted as examples to be used for building your own powers at the beginning of that section.

I believe author intent is fairly obviously "no such thing as NPC powers". It's possible someone didn't get the memo when they wrote Sacred Guardian, but that's an abnormality, not a default. The sections that actually talk about powers are a little more relevant then one random power in OW being terribly balanced. How does that suggest an NPC power, anyway? It's bad design even if it's only given to Foo Dogs, I think it's more likely that the writer just didn't think too much about the implications. There's nothing in there that states "this should be an NPC power".

[Silverblaze]

I didn't seem them listed under the powers section in Your Story.  That is where the inference came from. 

[Viatos]

I didn't seem them listed under the powers section in Your Story.  That is where the inference came from.

The powers section in YS is a toolkit that encourages you to make your own. In OW, powers exist that ARE fairly balanced, and you could certainly have made them up yourself, like Myrk and Zone of Silence (which work well together, by the way). All powers are built according to the same guidelines.

One power is built badly - it's not a huge oversight, but it is a significant one, to not have mapped out the mechanical significance of Sacred Guardian. This is a power worth much more then 1 Refresh, and frankly opens design space that should really remain sealed. I'd much rather go with "that power is bad" then "Our World, despite following the same mechanical guidelines introduced in Your Story, including the cost of powers which the player could have invented on their own, is NPC only".

My copy of both books contains nothing to support such a claim.

[Richard_Chilton]

Why do I think that there are NPC powers? To quote from YS 159:
Look but don’t touch?
A number of the powers presented in this chapter aren’t really player character focused. It’s unlikely you’ll see any PC show up with the powers of a ghost, or able to eat someone’s soul and impersonate them and their powers, or living inside a dead body like a zombie or Black Court vampire.
At least, that’s our take on it. But we could be wrong! At the least, the GM will be looking at this chapter when building creatures and foes to oppose the PCs—and in some games, she might even see a few “typically NPC” powers she’d be entirely happy to let the players get access to. Everyone’s game is different, so we decided it would be best to put all the powers in one place.

True, I added the bold, but I'm not sure they could have spelled it out any clearer.  Not everything in the Powers section were meant for PCs to use.

Richard

[Viatos]

Looks like everything in the Powers section was meant for PCs to be able to use to me. Otherwise, there'd be a line like "this power is not for PC use, PCs cannot have this power". Their internal designations are meaningless; in fact, they point out in that quoted section that they are meaningless.

I don't see your argument here. That's text explaining that there's no such thing as an NPC power. "Powers that we think are typically NPC but will allow players to have anyway if they want to" are not NPC powers. They're not restricted in any way, and author intent is not to bar them from PCs, they just feel that those powers are unlikely (their word) to show up in a PC.

A power tagged by UNAVAILABLE FOR PCS is an NPC power. Anything that a PC can have is a PC power.

[ways and means]

Looks like everything in the Powers section was meant for PCs to be able to use to me. Otherwise, there'd be a line like "this power is not for PC use, PCs cannot have this power". Their internal designations are meaningless; in fact, they point out in that quoted section that they are meaningless.

I don't see your argument here. That's text explaining that there's no such thing as an NPC power. "Powers that we think are typically NPC but will allow players to have anyway if they want to" are not NPC powers. They're not restricted in any way, and author intent is not to bar them from PCs, they just feel that those powers are unlikely (their word) to show up in a PC.

A power tagged by UNAVAILABLE FOR PCS is an NPC power. Anything that a PC can have is a PC power.

So just true glamours and Myruk (actually not even Myruk if you allow hob changelings) then.

[Richard_Chilton]

Looks like everything in the Powers section was meant for PCs to be able to use to me. Otherwise, there'd be a line like "this power is not for PC use, PCs cannot have this power". Their internal designations are meaningless; in fact, they point out in that quoted section that they are meaningless.

No, they don't say that it is meaningless.  They say that if you want to break the rules, then that's fine with them, but that some of these powers aren't meant for PCs.  If they didn't want to say that then they wouldn't have wasted word count on sidebar saying that.

Domination - any mortal with this power is going lawbreaker his Aspects into negative ones.  That looks like NPC to me.
Greater Glamours - since full Fae lack freewill and thus are not PC types, the description is basically saying NPC only.

In short:
PCs weren't meant to have the powers of a ghost, or be able to eat someone’s soul and impersonate them and their powers, or be living inside a dead body, but if that's what the table want then the people who made the game aren't going to send stormtroopers to your house to make you play the one true way.

This is another way that playing without Templates can break the game.  Without Templates, there are no limits on the mix and match powers - even those that were never meant to be mixed and matched.  And no, I don't see the line that says YOU MUST MAKE CUSTOM TEMPLATES OR WE SEND IN THE STORMTROOPERS - but maybe my copy of the game is defective that way.

Richard

[Mr. Death]

The powers having refresh costs isn't evidence that they're meant to be used on PCs. Refresh cost isn't just to determine how many powers a PC can have, it's also the way the book advises you scale opposition to the PCs, and to give a sense of how strong the various supernatural creatures are.

The books are written in such a way that they don't really flat out say "no" to anything, this is true. But you have to ignore a lot to say there wasn't certain intentions they had in mind, like the bit Richard quoted, or another part where Billy describes something as an "evil people eater power" and advises GMs to be very careful about letting PCs use it.

It says right at the start of the section that some of the powers just aren't going to be used by PCs, but they put them all in one place for convenience's sake.

[Locnil]

It still does not say that those are explicitly PC only. It's just a recommendation (Taking this power probably wouldn't give you a fun game, so maybe something else.) There's no way the developer could figure out what would work in every game, so they just made these powers and noted that they are not suited to all games.

But the fact that these powers were written out - and given a price - seems to me that these powers can be taken by PCs.

But by this point I think we've strayed  waaayyyy too far into YTMV territory for there to be any meaningful discussion. Ah well. The sidebar in YS seems to be doing its job perfectly, then.

[Viatos]

No, they don't say that it is meaningless.  They say that if you want to break the rules, then that's fine with them, but that some of these powers aren't meant for PCs.  If they didn't want to say that then they wouldn't have wasted word count on sidebar saying that.

Er, no, there's nothing in there about breaking rules or powers not being meant for PCs. As you...quoted directly...they just note that they find it unlikely. 0 rules implementation. It's just a friendly sidebar. Doesn't even present "optional rule: this list of powers is off-limits to PCs", all it is is developer commentary.

Domination - any mortal with this power is going lawbreaker his Aspects into negative ones.  That looks like NPC to me.
Greater Glamours - since full Fae lack freewill and thus are not PC types, the description is basically saying NPC only.

Your reading is off. Let's talk about that.

1) Domination does not cause Lawbreaker. It is not a Spellcasting Power. The Wardens might cite and behead you, but the universe doesn't care.
2) You may have characters which are not mortals, who do not receive the benefits or drawbacks of Lawbreaker ever.
3) You may play a Lawbreaker.

That's every angle covered on Domination, I think. No points there.

Now, Greater Glamours. Only true fae may take the power, yes. True fae don't usually have free will, ehhh...putting aside an Aspect like "Cursed With A Soul" or whatever, which is totally valid, not having free will doesn't make you "not a PC". Not having REFRESH does. A CHARACTER with no free will is not the same as a PLAYER with no free will, who may spend Fate Points (it's not a character decision, after all - you can't decide to have a fortuitous arrival or ask the universe to collapse a staircase at a dramatic moment) as usual. The PLAYER doesn't lose agency just because the CHARACTER does. For an easy example, see Harry Dresden - he's a supposedly free-willed mortal who never resists Compels or otherwise exercises his power of choice. In nearly every situation, his reaction is predictable: he will do "the right thing" or make a grab for power to get himself closer to doing "the right thing". He never deviates. Playing a true fae is no different.

Is Greater Glamours balanced? No. Is Evocation balanced? No. Is DFRPG still awesome? Yes, so I forgive the designers their foibles.

In short: as Richard has quoted and the Powers section confirms, nothing is barred from PC use in the rules or by implication, and author intent is clear both from the supportive text for taking whatever you feel fits your character or that you want to play with, and from the total and irrefutable lack of powers that say "PCs may not have this" or even "PCs should not have this".

The strongest language in the whole book about it is "it's unlikely that PCs will have this". Where are you guys getting all this stuff about Domination breaks the rules or you're not supposed to make new templates even though there's a sidebar that says "if you want to, make new templates"? You have to ignore everything to say NPC powers exist, or that the authors advocated some kind of selective one-true-wayism in the template builds. DFRPG is a permissive, open toolkit by design and by intent.

[Tedronai]

see Harry Dresden - he's a supposedly free-willed mortal who never resists Compels or otherwise exercises his power of choice. In nearly every situation, his reaction is predictable: he will do "the right thing" or make a grab for power to get himself closer to doing "the right thing". He never deviates. Playing a true fae is no different.

As much as I agree with your conclusion, I must object to this line of argument.

Refusing and buying off a compel does not necessarily mean that the relevant aspect does not describe a Truth of your character in that scenario, only that that Truth does not impede the character.

A Black Court Vampire can just as easily buy off a compel triggered by the dawn, or the Sidhe one triggered by an iron cage, as a mortal man one triggered by his Flaring Temper.
That is, if any of the above characters has a FP available to spend, their relevant aspect does not impede their goals in whatever manner was described by the compel (the vampire completes his immediate task with just enough time to find safe shelter for the day, or has representatives not similarly vulnerable to continue the task on his behalf while he rests; the Sidhe manages to wrap her hands in rags and bend the bars as if they were instead made of mere aluminum, enough for her to squeeze through with only moderate discomfort rather than substantial harm; the mortal man is prevented from committing a crime of passion by the intervention of a close friend, who knows how to defuse his anger).

Thus, the fact that Harry is never seen defying his nature in a substantial manner is not evidence that he accepts all compels that come his way.

[Sanctaphrax]

This is another way that playing without Templates can break the game.  Without Templates, there are no limits on the mix and match powers - even those that were never meant to be mixed and matched.

Bollocks.

Good writing means anticipating mixing and matching. DFRPG actually does this rather well.

Characters that go outside the canon templates are going to exist. There are loads of them in OW. The game has to be able to support their existence.

Evocation isn't really unbalanced. It's probably the strongest attack option, but only probably.

The sidebar is fairly clear. There are powers that are intended for NPCs, but you can take them if you want. If the powers are properly written, this will not present a problem. And most of them are properly written.

You'll notice that I say things like "assuming good writing" a lot when discussing this topic. The fact is, when you introduce narrative into mechanics you can paper over the flaws in your writing more easily. This is a bad thing, it encourages the sort of sloppy writing that White Wolf is famous for. And using Templates strictly is introducing narrative into mechanics.

Tedronai is right about compels, as usual.

[Tedronai]

Tedronai is right about compels, as usual.

It helps when you're just addressing the same misconception whenever it rears its head.  Though I did manage to use different examples this time...mostly.

[Sanctaphrax]

Yep.

You know, this ties pretty closely into my standard tirade about narrative and mechanics and the difference between the two.

Not accepting their separation is probably the biggest cause of that persistent misconception about compels.

(This is the sort of thing I'm talking about when I mention the pernicious effects of believing in narrative-mechanical integration, in case it's not obvious.)