Powers = Tools ?

[Sanctaphrax]

I've lost track of the conversation again. So: disjointed points.

-When a supposition is not supported directly by canon, you have to look at how plausible it is. The existence of a non-Sword superweapon that can kill anything seems plausible to me, given the sheer about of weird stuff in the setting. (It's certainly more plausible than the supposition that Harry's a serial killer.) But it's far from certain, there could just easily be nothing like the Swords.

-In order to accommodate both myself and Silverblaze, the game should dispense with narrative requirements for powers. But it should, and pretty much does, have a note saying that powers need to be plausibly justified in the eyes of the table. That way everyone's happy.

[Richard_Chilton]

What text is this? The text quoted by Richard, which exists to actively enforce the reality that any power is appropriate for a PC if they want it? The text written to explain that clearly, lest anyone get the wrong idea that NPC-only powers existed? That text?

The bolded part is simply incorrect.

Please reread that text - specifically the part that says a GM might allow someone to pick an "NPC-type" power.
Notice that it doesn't say "players have the right to take any power they wish" but instead says that GMs might decide to bend the intent of the rules to allow a PC to take an "NPC-type" power.

In other words, the PCs do not have a right to take any power they wish to.
 

You can houserule differently, but that's literally all an IoP is. It's built with the same rules characters use.

Not all of them.  The RAW say that the Sword focus the belief of worshipers around the world to do what they do - which implies that if you can't focus that same level of belief then you're SOL when it comes to that power.

For example, that a wizard can take True Shapeshifting or

(click to show/hide)

Spirit Form if they want to.

Actually, in the RAW wizards cannot take True Shapeshifting.  Assigning True Shapeshifting was a work around suggestion from Fred when Small Favors came out.  A "the rules don't allow someone to do that, so you can adopt them this way to reflect the change in canon" type thing.

Because when it comes to DFRPG, Jim's canon trumps everything.

Richard

[Sanctaphrax]

Richard, that's a seriously bad post.

I'm not sure how to go into detail without being rude.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove, but your arguments are obviously and grievously flawed.

[Richard_Chilton]

What I'm going at is that there are some powers that were written with NPCs in mind.  I'm basing it off of this sentence:
"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."
- which clearly implies that in most games (as opposed to some) she won't.
- even in the games where she sees a few powers she's happy to allow the PCs to, "few" implies that that there are many such powers that she won't let the players have access to.

Feel free to PM me with your opinion if you feel it is too offensive for the board.  I'd like to know what problem you have with the above argument.

Richard

[devonapple]

I am pretty certain the debate hasn't been about custom powers (I have made a fair few broken power I am not defending them) but powers the Dev's built themselves which should be balanced.

First of all, "cool thing" isn't exclusively about custom powers. It can be anything which isn't plainly laid out in the rules. A character concept, for example, like playing a Fae. They aren't in the player-recommended Templates section, even though Fae are a huge part of the DresdenVerse. They certainly weren't left out for space considerations. They were left out because, all things being equal, they are considered by the canon to be tantamount to forces of nature, and unplayable by most PCs in a way that remains true to the setting.

But that doesn't mean nobody can try. That doesn't mean nobody *should* try. But that's a table decision.

But certainly, those elements have been catalyzing factors. Yet I feel that the drift of threads like this has ultimately been about tolerance and uncertainty (and, conversely, intolerance and stubbornness).

There are elements of the RPG which are left vague. This causes uncertainty. "What should I do?" Sometimes setting (or extrapolating from the setting) can inform the vagueness, but other times it just can't. There are elements of the RPG which are roughly outlined, but as they are ultimately still governed by "Your Table, Your Rules", they persist as guidelines, not rules. The setting often supports these guidelines, but because the DresdenVerse still has so much unexplored territory - and can, by extrapolation, support a vast multitude of ideas - that it can be easy to discount what the setting *has* established, and extrapolate *limitations* from there.

There's nothing wrong with approaching this uncertainty with Hamlet's notion that "there's more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy". GMs should always say "yes" if there isn't a compelling reason to say "no".

But when there is feedback from community members that something *shouldn't* be, for [insert narrative/setting reason here], don't just dismiss it as negativism. Take the feedback, on its own merits, and if you still want to do go forward with your character concept or rules interpretation or whatever, you're free to say "I see where you're coming from. I can see how the setting/rules can be interpreted that way. Nevertheless, I still feel confident that I can make [insert cool thing] work in *my* game, but I'll keep your feedback in mind. If you have any thoughts on how to do it right, I'd love to hear them."

But you have to understand that, as far as Evil Hat is concerned, THIS forum *is* the errata. It is precedent. Which is why the people in the unfortunate position of saying "no" to [insert cool idea here] are holding the line as strongly as they are: because they feel they will have to live with it if they say "alright, sure, go for it."

[Sanctaphrax]

What I'm going at is that there are some powers that were written with NPCs in mind.  I'm basing it off of this sentence:
"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."
- which clearly implies that in most games (as opposed to some) she won't.
- even in the games where she sees a few powers she's happy to allow the PCs to, "few" implies that that there are many such powers that she won't let the players have access to.

Feel free to PM me with your opinion if you feel it is too offensive for the board.  I'd like to know what problem you have with the above argument.

Richard

You put far too much stock in implication. If it's not stated outright, it probably isn't a rule.

Honestly, it seems that you're trying to make the rules support a preconceived conclusion here.

Jim's canon is not important. There's seriously no good reason for it to matter.

Wizards can certainly take True Shapeshifting, even when using templates. They just need a second template. I suggest calling it Druid, after the D&D class.

Okay, I think that was fairly respectful.

[Mr. Death]

Considering it a bit more, I think what that sidebar should have said was, instead of "typically-NPC" powers, "typically bad guy" powers. Because aside from the Mythic level powers (one of which, I don't recall, says something like, "You're usually only going to see this on NPCs), most of the places it mentions something like, "a PC wouldn't usually have this," or "a GM should think carefully about this," are on powers that are, well, bad--things like Domination, or Mimic Powers ("evil-people-eater power," quoth Billy).

The rulebook seems to assume that players are going to be playing generally good folks--people like Harry, Murphy, Billy, or Michael, and bases its PC/NPC power distribution advice (what little there is) based on that.

So it's less straight up "A PC shouldn't have this power," and more, "This power tends to end up on mustache-twirlingly-evil characters, so be careful with it."

[devonapple]

Jim's canon is not important. There's seriously no good reason for it to matter.

Except, of course, for all of those players and GMs for whom it *totally* does matter.

[Richard_Chilton]

I'm going to reply to something slightly out of order - because it's the biggest point where we disagree.

You put far too much stock in implication. If it's not stated outright, it probably isn't a rule.

We once again run into the setting verses the hard mechanics debate.  That sidebar makes it clear that there are “typically NPC” powers.  The rules only explicitly identify one such power (Greater Glamour), but there are others that would be covered by the "Look but don’t touch?" sidebar.

Wizards can certainly take True Shapeshifting, even when using templates. They just need a second template. I suggest calling it Druid, after the D&D class.

Query: where in the RAW does it allow you to take multiple Templates? There's some text on switching templates - Changeling to Pure Mortal, Pure Mortal to something else - but nothing on having more than one template at a time.

Jim's canon is not important. There's seriously no good reason for it to matter.

And here is our major bone of contention.

The people at Evil Hat could have released a DFRPG in 2003 when they got the license.
They could have released it right after Spirit of the Century.  Indeed, there's an ad in the back of that game that says DFRPG will be out in 2006.

So why wasn't it released until 2010? Because they weren't just releasing a generic game, they were attempting to model the Dredenverse.  There's that blog post where it explains how they put every magical effect ever seen in the books on index cards (which multiplied as every new book came out) and tried to come up with a magic system that could duplicate each and every effect.  Go back in the forum to when the game was released and you'll see posts from Fred saying "we couldn't cover <blah> because Jim hasn't defined <blah> yet" - clearly showing that the mechanics are shaped by the narrative.

In short, the game is completely dependent on the setting and as Jim changes the setting (rapid shapeshifting in Small Favors) it affects the game (Fred saying to use Shapeshifting to simulate the power - and explaining it as internalised Thaumaturgy rituals).

Richard

[Viatos]

I think the problem is you keep making stuff up, then saying "these are the rules". It fosters disagreement in some people when you make a habit of that. You might find yourself better received if you stop that.

We once again run into the setting verses the hard mechanics debate.  That sidebar makes it clear that there are “typically NPC” powers.  The rules only explicitly identify one such power (Greater Glamour), but there are others that would be covered by the "Look but don’t touch?" sidebar.

Yes, that sidebar makes it clear that there are "typically NPC" powers in the same breath that it makes clear that PCs can have them. Keep that in context at all times: that is the sidebar that says PCs can have those powers. You keep using language to talk about it that creates false implications nowhere extant in the text. Refer to your own post if need be, but you're getting way off course with that.

In short, the game is completely dependent on the setting and as Jim changes the setting (rapid shapeshifting in Small Favors) it affects the game (Fred saying to use Shapeshifting to simulate the power - and explaining it as internalised Thaumaturgy rituals).

No, the game is not dependent on the setting. No, changes to the setting do not affect the game as it exists. Where are you getting this? Because Fred thought up a way using the existing rules to model something players wanted? It's just a game based off a book series. It models it to an extant, but not perfectly, not completely, and certainly not reactively.

You can pick up DFRPG and play it without reading the books. It's independent, and Jim's changes don't result in errata. It's a complete game, and as an open toolkit, it actively supports you in changing or expanding its setting, so no, you don't need to go by Dresdenverse rules if you don't care to. You're still playing DFRPG, though - the DFRPG supported by its designers. You are given explicit license to mess around.

Like Sanctaphrax, I have no desire to insult or offend, but you seem to be pushing your arguments farther and farther without noticing the crumbling base. This thing above is less of a rules quibble like "Is All Creatures are Equal Before God broken?" and more of a dangerously misleading statement that could cause a lot of trouble for, say, a new player who didn't know better then to trust you. I'm thinking this is maybe the point where we drop the discussion altogether before things progress to the inevitable conclusion.

[devonapple]

Query: where in the RAW does it allow you to take multiple Templates? There's some text on switching templates - Changeling to Pure Mortal, Pure Mortal to something else - but nothing on having more than one template at a time.

YS 72: "It may be possible to combine some of these templates, if you can afford each template’s musts. However, it will be rare that those costs work out. We haven’t seen a Wizard-Lycanthrope-Red-Court-Infected-Changelingpotamus in Harry’s casefiles, and you certainly won’t see one as a playable character in this game. For good reason—bring that much mashed-up mojo to bear in one character and you’re on a fast train to negative refreshville."

[devonapple]

Also, while I'm on YS 72:
"Regardless, while the [template] choices listed here are hardly the only ones available in the Dresdenverse, they represent what we think are the best options for the would-be heroes of your game world. Enjoy!"

There. Game designer intent AND latitude to design new templates.

[Richard_Chilton]

Yes, that sidebar makes it clear that there are "typically NPC" powers in the same breath that it makes clear that PCs can have them. Keep that in context at all times: that is the sidebar that says PCs can have those powers. You keep using language to talk about it that creates false implications nowhere extant in the text. Refer to your own post if need be, but you're getting way off course with that.

Again, it says that the GM can say yes to those power - which means that the default is no.

From your bolding, I take it that you don't see sidebars as equal to the other parts of the RAW.  Just as you seem to hold the margin notes of "no, they don't have freewill so you can't play them" as irrelevant because it's a margin note.

No, the game is not dependent on the setting. No, changes to the setting do not affect the game as it exists. Where are you getting this? Because Fred thought up a way using the existing rules to model something players wanted?

I'm getting it from Fred's post.  Read the archive from when the game was being released.  Read where people asked "How do we do blah when blah is not allowed by the rules and happens in the book" and you'll see him answering with workarounds.  Things like allowing Wizards to take greater shapeshifting and Worldwalker to simulate the powers of Senior Council members.

I'm getting it from the fact the next big book "Tales from the Paranet" will up the game to handle the setting changes.

If the game wasn't modelling the books it would be FATE 2.0 Urban Fantasy, not the DFRPG.

I think that this difference in philosophy is at the root of most of the heated debates here.  Some have called it "crunch vs fluff".

You have read the "Look but don’t touch?" sidebar countless times, but since it doesn't reference mechanics you don't see anything implying that there are “typically NPC” powers that the GM has the option of saying yes to.

You have read the "Monsters have Nature, Mortals have Choice" section of the rules, but because it has no mechanics you feel that the RAW allow PCs without freewill.

As for my constant references to the RAW, we both see the game as toolbox that can be added to, but since we both would add different tools from that box (and we don't have copies of each others toolboxes) the only common reference point we have is the RAW.   Which is why I try to get people to talk about where they are coming.
For example, in the "do you add the +2 pure mortal refresh bonus to the changeling template" some people answered yes.  Later, in another discussion, it became clear that they wouldn't add it to the template because they don't use templates.

Richard

[Richard_Chilton]

YS 72: "It may be possible to combine some of these templates, if you can afford each template’s musts. However, it will be rare that those costs work out. We haven’t seen a Wizard-Lycanthrope-Red-Court-Infected-Changelingpotamus in Harry’s casefiles, and you certainly won’t see one as a playable character in this game. For good reason—bring that much mashed-up mojo to bear in one character and you’re on a fast train to negative refreshville."

I missed that. 

Also, while I'm on YS 72:
"Regardless, while the [template] choices listed here are hardly the only ones available in the Dresdenverse, they represent what we think are the best options for the would-be heroes of your game world. Enjoy!"

There. Game designer intent AND latitude to design new templates.

I've never said that new templates were not allow.

But I'll never know what your group wrote for a custom template for X, and that may not be (well, probably won't be) identical to what another group wrote for X.

Which is another way of saying the RAW is the only common ground we have for that discussion.

Richard

[Viatos]

I've never said that new templates were not allow.

You've strongly implied it, repeatedly.

But I'll never know what your group wrote for a custom template for X, and that may not be (well, probably won't be) identical to what another group wrote for X.

Which is another way of saying the RAW is the only common ground we have for that discussion.

Yes. RAW is that you may make or even combine templates, so that's all we need to have discussion around. If someone says "Can I take Evocation, ACaE, and Domination on one character" you can say with absolute confidence "Yes, either play a Scion or make a template for it" and then maybe add helpful things like "but ACaE doesn't mix very well with Evocation or things like Inhuman Strength, so here are some alternatives your GM might prefer" or "but Domination is difficult to use in actual play, if you want mind-invading powers you might find a modification of Incite Emotion more your speed".