The DF verses the DFRPG

[Richard_Chilton]

Since this has come up on various topics I thought I'd give it a topic of its own.  If nothing else it will give a chance to see where others are coming from.

So what's the real difference between the choices? The DFRPG is modelled after the DF books, right?

What I see as the difference is one of setting being the inspiration for the rules as oppose to the mechanic trumping the setting.

Richard

[Ghsdkgb]

I'm actually playing in two campaigns right now, one of which is lock-step with the book universe, and one is a totally divergent parallel universe where nearly all our players have deviated from templates to a significant extent.

[Viatos]

Both answers to that poll are equivalent. Neither contradicts the other. It is a game using the Dresdenverse as a setting, and inspired by the works of Jim Butcher.

[ways and means]

Unless your GM is Jim your playing an interpretation of the DF verse.

[Tallyrand]

Both answers to that poll are equivalent. Neither contradicts the other. It is a game using the Dresdenverse as a setting, and inspired by the works of Jim Butcher.

I think it's pretty clear that the intent of the poll is 'no less than'.  For example, if you're watching The Taming of the Shrew you're watching Shakespeare's play, if you're watching 10 Things I Hate About You you're watching something that is inspired by Shakespeare's play.

That beings said this is a tough question for me to answer.  Personal I think that limits inspire creativity so I try to keep things very strictly in Jim's universe when thinking about the game and how the rules apply.  On the other hand I highly encourage things that make sense in the Dresdenverse but aren't specifically laid out (like many people use the Autumn and Spring courts).  I feel like a middle option of some sort would better represent my view but when in doubt I stick with cannon.

[sinker]

To be perfectly technical, the game (Fate) came first, and is adapted to Jim Butcher's fiction. I don't see them as mutually exclusive though. The rules convey the setting fairly well, despite coming first.

[Richard_Chilton]

Both answers to that poll are equivalent. Neither contradicts the other. It is a game using the Dresdenverse as a setting, and inspired by the works of Jim Butcher.

You can't see the difference between them?

Allow me to give you an example:
There is nothing in the RAW about playing angels with freewill.
The setting that Jim produced has defined angels as lacking freewill.  Should an angel wish to exercise freewill that angel becomes a Fallen Angel, which isn't the same as being an angel.

So, can you play a freewill angel in DFRPG? Option 1 says "no, because the setting has defined angels as not having freewill".  Option 2 says "yes, because the rules doesn't say that you can't".

To be perfectly technical, the game (Fate) came first, and is adapted to Jim Butcher's fiction. I don't see them as mutually exclusive though. The rules convey the setting fairly well, despite coming first.

The rules were also heavily modified to fit the setting.  I recently picked up another Fate game (Spirit of the Century) and those rules aren't the DFRPG ones.  SotC has Feat Trees, but it doesn't have High Concept or Trouble.  One has powers, the other has "Feats with lots of preques" that give you powers.  Technically the SotC Feats all cost one but by putting the powers in Feat Trees it means that you'll need to invest 3 - 4 Feats before you gain a power.

The reason they had to change so many of the rules was that SotC Fate couldn't model the DV.  To me that says that the mechanics bow to the setting.

Richard

[devonapple]

You can't see the difference between them?

Allow me to give you an example:
There is nothing in the RAW about playing angels with freewill.
The setting that Jim produced has defined angels as lacking freewill.  Should an angel wish to exercise freewill that angel becomes a Fallen Angel, which isn't the same as being an angel.

So, can you play a freewill angel in DFRPG? Option 1 says "no, because the setting has defined angels as not having freewill".  Option 2 says "yes, because the rules doesn't say that you can't".

I concur with this definition, if that helps.

[Viatos]

There is nothing in the RAW about playing angels with freewill.
The setting that Jim produced has defined angels as lacking freewill.  Should an angel wish to exercise freewill that angel becomes a Fallen Angel, which isn't the same as being an angel.

Lash appears to have gained free will prior to her demise. I believe Jim confirms it in an interview at some point. So we know from Jim's setting that entities with monstrous natures can gain free will.

We also know that there are chlorofiends and Kong Voltron and four different types of werewolves. As a kitchen sink setting, if you want to be true to Jim Butcher, it doesn't help to ask "did he write it already"; instead, try "does it fit the general weirdness of a setting where Harry's perpetually randy air fairy spirit once possessed an undead dinosaur". If it fits, you're being true to the setting.

So, can you play a freewill angel in DFRPG? Option 1 says "no, because the setting has defined angels as not having freewill".  Option 2 says "yes, because the rules doesn't say that you can't".

So that's a false dichotomy, and I still don't really understand the difference. Jim makes very few "absolutes" clear by design, so it feels like using absolutes to distinguish between "game based on" and "game inspired by" doesn't work. Canon isn't...closed, maybe, would be the right word? We know that there are vampire Courts that haven't been and may never be revealed, for instance - should we not make them as templates because they're not known or definitely make them as templates because they do exist?

[devonapple]

So that's a false dichotomy, and I still don't really understand the difference.

It's not, it really isn't. As mentioned before, it is a clear dichotomy if you interpret the RAW and the guiding text as meaning that no free will = unplayable NPC.

Canon isn't...closed, maybe, would be the right word? We know that there are vampire Courts that haven't been and may never be revealed, for instance - should we not make them as templates because they're not known or definitely make them as templates because they do exist?

Of course there is room to expand. But the conflict seems to be about the playability of creature types which HAVE appeared on-screen, so to speak, and THEIR playability.

Angels and Fae have clearly - in the setting - been established as lacking free will. As lacking the mortal choice. The game has tried fairly hard to maintain this idea. They aren't listed as playable Templates. Neither are Demons or Constructs.

Lash was an exception, an echo in Harry's mind, which eventually bowed to Harry's stubbornness. And similar exceptions may come to exist - any number of tables may grant similar latitude for their characters. Doesn't mean you can'tcan'tcan't ever do it, but it's going to be a GM-player-table decision, and you're not necessarily going to extract community approval for it as anything other than something that was allowed at an individual table.

But don't mistake an exception for a rule, don't ignore that they *are* exceptions.

[Richard_Chilton]

Lash appears to have gained free will prior to her demise. I believe Jim confirms it in an interview at some point. So we know from Jim's setting that entities with monstrous natures can gain free will.

We were talking about angels, weren't we?

Lash was not an angel.  She isn't even Fallen Angel, she was the echo of a Fallen Angel in Harry's mind.  She had her own name to differentiate her from the Fallen Angel.  If the Fallen Angel ever moved in (i.e. if Harry took up the coin) then she would have ceased to exist.

Nor did she have Freewill.  In dying she was just obeying her new nature, the nature that Harry had help make by in someways redefining her.

To quote:
Q) Lash was apparently able to gain free will from harry, a mortal. Can mortals potentially grant free will to other supernaturals like vampires and faries?”
A) That’s… a spectacularly complicated question, really. 
Lash didn’t gain free will, per se. Lash gained individuality, became a singular entity, self-motivated and distinct from the personality of Lasciel the Fallen. That personality was strongly influenced by Dresden, who believes very strongly in individual choice and responsibility, but doesn’t necessarily equate to free will in the sense of what mortals possess.
You might note that Lash essentially committed suicide with her “free will.” A choice which rather strongly resembles another choice a few books later in the series.

---
Which is beside the point since we are talking about angels not having freewill.

As a kitchen sink setting, if you want to be true to Jim Butcher, it doesn't help to ask "did he write it already"; instead, try "does it fit the general weirdness of a setting where Harry's perpetually randy air fairy spirit once possessed an undead dinosaur". If it fits, you're being true to the setting.

That would make sense, except where Jim has defined things.  For example, Jim has defined Angels.  The RPG has not defined Angels.

So that's a false dichotomy, and I still don't really understand the difference. Jim makes very few "absolutes" clear by design, so it feels like using absolutes to distinguish between "game based on" and "game inspired by" doesn't work. Canon isn't...closed, maybe, would be the right word? We know that there are vampire Courts that haven't been and may never be revealed, for instance - should we not make them as templates because they're not known or definitely make them as templates because they do exist?

The thing is, Jim has clearly defined some things.  For incident, the Laws of Magic work independent of the White Council - which is why PCs have to take the Lawbreaker stunt even if the White Council doesn't know about their crimes.  The Sidhe have been defined as not able to knowingly lie - they literally cannot knowingly utter something that is an out and out lie.

And angels have been defined.  Not "angel like beings", not "spirits of good that serve a nice god", not "things from a different culture that are their versions of angels" - Angels.

Angels don't have freewill in the DV because that's how Jim defined.
But nothing in the RPG says that you can't have an angel with freewill.

Can you play an angel with freewill? Pick option 1 for no, pick option 2 for yes.

Richard

[Viatos]

It's not, it really isn't. As mentioned before, it is a clear dichotomy if you interpret the RAW and the guiding text as meaning that no free will = unplayable NPC.

But once you start interpreting beyond the RAW, how can I make decisions about where my game is? We're not dealing with a scale I can quantify.

Lash was an exception, an echo in Harry's mind, which eventually bowed to Harry's stubbornness. And similar exceptions may come to exist - any number of tables may grant similar latitude for their characters. Doesn't mean you can'tcan'tcan't ever do it, but it's going to be a GM-player-table decision, and you're not necessarily going to extract community approval for it as anything other than something that was allowed at an individual table.

But don't mistake an exception for a rule, don't ignore that they *are* exceptions.

The whole Dresdenverse setting is based around exceptions to rules, though - I'd say if anything, they're more appropriate as characters then "generic" characters who act exactly as you'd expect. Every major character in the novels is an exception to a rule.

Harry. Murphy. Thomas. They are all special snowflakes. Lash fits in just fine. So do free-willed fae and construct characters - never as NPCs, but definitely as PCs. That's the spirit of the Dresdenverse. It's all about exceptionality, about being outside the norm and using that perspective to change things. PCs that break setting assumptions are as close as you can get to actually playing the books.

[UmbraLux]

Kinda agree with Viatos - the options you describe don't appear mutually exclusive.  Also, our view into the Dresdenverse is neither clear nor complete (it's colored by Harry's perception and knowledge). 

Even your example of angels is questionable.  Have all types been mentioned?  What of the type myth says interbred with humanity (nephelim?) - have they even been mentioned?

[Sanctaphrax]

Obviously the game isn't bound to the setting. You can tell by the way that YS doesn't tell you to change your game whenever a new book comes out.

Modelling the setting was very likely part of the goal, but who cares about the goals now? The game's written already.

You can play this game in the Dresdenverse or outside of it, it's really up to you. Fortunately, making the game functional in other settings requires no sacrifice of functionality within the Dresdenverse.

[Richard_Chilton]

So we should tell Fred to jettison the "Update to the setting" chapter in Paranet?

Even your example of angels is questionable.  Have all types been mentioned?  What of the type myth says interbred with humanity (nephelim?) - have they even been mentioned?

Nephelim - who were cast out of heaven because they got it on with mortals?

Let's talk current angels. 

(click to show/hide)

Several of which appear in Ghost Story - including an Angel of Death who became offended when Harry told her to make her own choice.

Jim has made it clear that angels who exercise freewill fall.  There's even that conversation with Lash concerning how she didn't have freewill as angel.

But if this example is getting tired, how about other examples of things that Jim defined that didn't make the game? Which is the basic question:
Jim has defined something as impossible.
The RAW are silent on that matter.
Is it possible in the game?

1 for no, 2 for yes.

Richard