Powers = Tools ?

[Sanctaphrax]

@Richard: If you're making a game using the system of a previous game, you're going to make whatever improvements you can. If the previous game has problems, why would you leave them unfixed?

I've heard numerous complaints saying that SotC makes characters too tough. And I've heard people say that ten aspects is too much too. So I expect that those were problems.

Oh, and if SotC is so generic, how would it handle the Dresdenverse? Because that's how you test this stuff. I'm fairly certain that DFRPG can do the SotC-style pulp stuff without issue, so if SotC can't do the same back then that makes DFRPG the generic game.

@Becq: Yes, the game provides everything you need to play in the Dresdenverse. And its narrative material is setting specific. And DFRPG is a FATE game, and FATE is a generic system. Nobody disputes any of that.

But what, exactly, ties the mechanics of the game to the setting? That's pretty much the only thing I'm concerned with here, and so far as I can tell the answer is "very little".

[Richard_Chilton]

Oh, and if SotC is so generic, how would it handle the Dresdenverse? Because that's how you test this stuff. I'm fairly certain that DFRPG can do the SotC-style pulp stuff without issue, so if SotC can't do the same back then that makes DFRPG the generic game.

How would it handle generic Urban Fantasy? With stunt trees.  There is character that is hundreds (if not thousands) of years old who disproves thing mathematical - causing them to disappear.  The SotS book has a couple of wizard types.  There's a character who commands dinosaurs to do his bidding - living Sues, not zombie ones.

It can be done - but using that system doesn't capture the flavour of...

I could go on, but why? You reject every statement out of hand.  Even when Becq various parts of the rulebook you rejected that with little comment...

One last try:
Name all the settings out there with Knights of the Cross whose swords work the way the ones in the DV do.  That is, they channel the belief christian around the world to Make All Creatures Equal... Wait, I forgot that you completely disregard anything that isn't in the rules section.

Hmm... Since you reject all the setting material as meaningless fluff, you reject all the things that tie the powers to the DV.

Which brings me back to "I could go on, but why?".

Richard

[Viatos]

One last try:
Name all the settings out there with Knights of the Cross whose swords work the way the ones in the DV do.  That is, they channel the belief christian around the world to Make All Creatures Equal... Wait, I forgot that you completely disregard anything that isn't in the rules section.

DnD Paladins do this. They Smite Evil, channeling the power of Good to smash Evil's face in. The mechanic can be used rarely (almost as if they were spending Fate Points) and deal lots more damage.

In Exalted, Solars do this. They have access to Holy effects, which deal aggravated damage to Creatures of Darkness and can pierce some of their defenses.

In (new) World of Darkness, blessed objects are one of the few weapons effective against ghosts. Blessed objects and ghosts are the only supernatural elements statted out in the core book.

Knights of the Cross are just about as generic as you can get, actually. They're just guys with holy swords, one of the oldest tropes in the book from which ideas like the paladin first gestated. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HolyHandGrenade Here's an article on people who use that kind of mechanic from various forms of media.

[Richard_Chilton]

DnD Paladins do this. They Smite Evil, channeling the power of Good to smash Evil's face in.

They channel the power of their god to do that - not the belief of a billion or three people.

Nor do they bypass all damage reduction.

In Exalted, Solars do this. They have access to Holy effects, which deal aggravated damage to Creatures of Darkness and can pierce some of their defenses.

Again, works differently.  They aren't channeling the belief of the Christian world to do it.

In (new) World of Darkness, blessed objects are one of the few weapons effective against ghosts. Blessed objects and ghosts are the only supernatural elements statted out in the core book.

Again, blessed objects in the nWoD do not channel the belief of a billion or three people.  Nor do they do agg against all things.

Knights of the Cross are just about as generic as you can get, actually. They're just guys with holy swords, one of the oldest tropes in the book from which ideas like the paladin first gestated. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HolyHandGrenade Here's an article on people who use that kind of mechanic from various forms of media.

(please note: since this forum has specific rules against religion debates, I'm pointing out that the text below refers ONLY to the DV.  I am not endorsing (or slamming) any real world religious beliefs - I am only referring to religion as portrayed in the books.)

Holy knights are generic.

Three Knights who use Swords forged with the iron from the nail of the Cross aren't.  Now if they were an order - say 50 or 60 carrying relics - then I could see them as generic holy knights.  But they aren't.  They are hand picked by Archangels (who directly serve the will of God) and given something that has touched the Blood of the Lamb.

Perhaps more importantly, unlike Paladins, Exalted, etc - they are not given powers directly.  They merely use a Sword that is a direct link to all who believe in the Crucifixion.  That Sword, whose iron is soaked in the Blood of the Lamb, has the power, not the person using it.  And if the person using it isn't of pure heart and purpose then it just doesn't work.

Micheal doesn't have the power that his Sword has - he merely uses the Sword.  If unarmed he still has Faith but not all creatures are equal.

Show me anything that predates Storm Front that has something like that - because I haven't seen it.

Richard

[ways and means]

Terry Pratchett God's function like that, so do a lot of God's in fantasy settings (God's being an exponent of belief), the Emperor in 40k derives a massive amount of power from the worship he receives every day. Doctor Who used an exponent of massed belief to will the master away (don't know how that work didn't ask) and the are numerous other settings where belief equals power (Wrath of the Titans film recently). 

[devonapple]

Terry Pratchett God's function like that, so do a lot of God's in fantasy settings (God's being an exponent of belief), the Emperor in 40k derives a massive amount of power from the worship he receives every day. Doctor Who used an exponent of massed belief to will the master away (don't know how that work didn't ask) and the are numerous other settings where belief equals power (Wrath of the Titans film recently).

Yes, these observations are all true. There is also nothing new under the sun. Every superpower has been imagined. Does that make it time to stop printing comic books?

No, creativity is found in the creative recombination and presentation of previous ideas.

And while it is true that the Knights of the Cross draw on a variety of pre-existing tropes, all of which have been identified, that does not make them "generic."

[ways and means]

Holy Knights who wield the power of God are generic according to Richard (I think sorry if I am misinterpreting your statement) in the Dresden Files setting Belief = Power and there is some hints that a God's power comes from the belief people have in them, therefor using the power of people's belief in a God is the same as using that God's power.

[Tedronai]

And while it is true that the Knights of the Cross draw on a variety of pre-existing tropes, all of which have been identified, that does not make them "generic."

Nor does the particular combination of common fantastical elements make the system used to represent them specific to the setting the designers had in mind when they created it.

[Richard_Chilton]

Holy Knights who wield the power of God are generic according to Richard (I think sorry if I am misinterpreting your statement) in the Dresden Files setting Belief = Power and there is some hints that a God's power comes from the belief people have in them, therefor using the power of people's belief in a God is the same as using that God's power.

As far gods go, I'm not sure if Belief = Power or if Belief = Access to this world.  It's only stated that the Swords focus the belief, not angels, not priests.  But when talking about that focused belief we have to make the distinction that the Knights don't have that power.  The Swords do - and they refuse to allow it to be used for base purposes.

Richard

[Sanctaphrax]

How would it handle generic Urban Fantasy? With stunt trees.  There is character that is hundreds (if not thousands) of years old who disproves thing mathematical - causing them to disappear.  The SotS book has a couple of wizard types.  There's a character who commands dinosaurs to do his bidding - living Sues, not zombie ones.

Aight, I'll look into that.

It can be done - but using that system doesn't capture the flavour of...

I could go on, but why? You reject every statement out of hand.  Even when Becq various parts of the rulebook you rejected that with little comment...

Make a good argument and I'll give it due consideration. Present something silly and I will reject what you say out of hand.

Wait, I forgot that you completely disregard anything that isn't in the rules section.

We're talking about whether the rules are generic, here. Anything outside of the rules section is irrelevant to the discussion, because this is a discussion about rules.

Hmm... Since you reject all the setting material as meaningless fluff, you reject all the things that tie the powers to the DV.

So...I'm completely right?

Because I can't think of any other way to interpret what you said.

PS: I don't consider setting material to be meaningless at all and I'm kind of suprised that anyone thinks that I do. Seriously, what gives you that impression?

[Richard_Chilton]

PS: I don't consider setting material to be meaningless at all and I'm kind of suprised that anyone thinks that I do. Seriously, what gives you that impression?

It's because when we quote sections from the book that isn't in what you consider to be the "crunchy" section you disregard that bit as fluff.

For example, above when Becq quoted line after line saying that the DFRPG was modelled to ape the DV as closely as possible - making it a system designed around a particular setting (much like Empire of the Petaled Throne).  You blithely dismissed those quotes (which were the evidence that you asked for) by asking particular powers could only be used in the DV.

Or when I point the part of the book that says that ACAEBG is powered by the belief of billions of people - which is a major limit on what can use it.  Based on that requirement, you basically need a symbol of a faith that has millions of believers to craft a ACAEBG IoP.  Yet you dismiss that as mere setting fluff because it isn't mentioned in the abbreviated write up of the power.

Maybe I'm misreading things, but when I read your posts I often see you saying that if a part of the setting not specified in the actual mechanic of a power then it is irrelevant.  That having it mentioned elsewhere in the book doesn't count.

Richard

[Sanctaphrax]

If it isn't specified in the actual mechanic of a thing (be it a power or another thing), then it's not part of the mechanics. Which means that it has no bearing on discussions like this one.

PS: The Sword has millions of believers backing it up, but that doesn't mean that another artifact with similar effects would need to have millions of believers too. The scythe of the Grim Reaper or the touch of mordite could also negate Toughness, with no believers involved at all.

[Richard_Chilton]

If it isn't specified in the actual mechanic of a thing (be it a power or another thing), then it's not part of the mechanics. Which means that it has no bearing on discussions like this one.

And that's why I feel you "consider setting material to be meaningless".

The full write up for ACAEBG does not exist.  It was not included in the rules.  We can guess at the power costs (because it's included in an IoP) but those are only guesses.  I think that the RAW suggests that items that have the ACAEBG power:
1) Can only be wielded by a "Righteous man" (i.e. someone with the Champion of God template) OR by playing a FATE chip to temporarily use the IoP.
2) Should only exist in Earth moving IoPs such as the Swords.

These limitations are not explicitly stated in the RAW because the power does not have its own writeup.  If it did, then I believe that it would have those extra crunchy bits added - much like how the RAW say that Warden Swords can only be made by Luccio.

But if you want to look at powers away from the setting, then here's a question about Thaumaturgy:
How many Thaumaturgy steps does a wizard need to repair the damaged caused by Domination in order to return a Renfield to his old self?

Personally, I'd say that you can't, that no human has the knowledge or power to do either.  It might be that certain ancient and powerful Fae know how to do that, but the most legendary wizard in history (the original Merlin, founder of the White Council) couldn't do it nor could any of the Saints who have tried.

The setting material says it can't be done (any more than an angel can exercise freewill) but the rules for Thaumaturgy is silent on the matter.  If you feel that the silence means that it can be done, then we are back to why I feel that you "consider setting material to be meaningless".

Richard

[devonapple]

Maybe I'm misreading things, but when I read your posts I often see you saying that if a part of the setting not specified in the actual mechanic of a power then it is irrelevant.  That having it mentioned elsewhere in the book doesn't count.

I have received the exact same impression, for what it's worth. I'm not sure that the line should be drawn where you draw it, Sanctaphrax, especially since this isn't, for example, an OGL game in which certain rules and artifacts are highlighted as either OGL or proprietary.

[UmbraLux]

...especially since this isn't, for example, an OGL game in which certain rules and artifacts are highlighted as either OGL or proprietary.

Isn't it?  My understanding is Evil Hat intends to distil DFRPG into an open FATE 3.  They've got a fairly good start.