Shutting down a spell caster

[Tush Hog]

We see a couple of examples in the books of a spell caster shutting down a lesser caster.

Seems like a Block is the way to go, but not sure about the best way to implement it.

Would the block be set against the Calling up of Power? The amount of power drawn in by the adversary would have to beat the block. Or would it be better that the block be set against the spell casting roll?

[Deadmanwalking]

Definitely the roll, that's the way blocks work. It's just a flat block against spellcasting (possibly with Zone Wide and certainly with some duration thrown on starting the second turn if you're doing it as Evocation...there's a reason whoever's doing this can't do much else). Any spell has to overcome it to work at all.

The Thaumaturgy version is easier and more effective...but requires a piece of the target, which can be tricky to get.

[Tush Hog]

Many thanks!

[Mr. Death]

Or you can do it as a maneuver and then tag for effect.

[Deadmanwalking]

Or you can do it as a maneuver and then tag for effect.

That's risky as hell, though, since they can refuse the Compel.

[Vargo Teras]

That's risky as hell, though, since they can refuse the Compel.

This is GM-dependent. Some GMs will never refuse compels, some will do so often, some will encourage you to double down on the compel.

[JDK002]

As a GM, I would never personally refuse a compel/invoke that required the player to use up an action.  I just comes across as cheating a player out of an action.  If I were to refuse the player, I would probably just let them know before they made the maneuver.  But that's just me.

[Deadmanwalking]

As a GM, I would never personally refuse a compel/invoke that required the player to use up an action.  I just comes across as cheating a player out of an action.  If I were to refuse the player, I would probably just let them know before they made the maneuver.  But that's just me.

I would. Forcing the enemy to spend an FP refusing is worthwhile in and of itself.

[Mr. Death]

I would. Forcing the enemy to spend an FP refusing is worthwhile in and of itself.

That's provided you're keeping close track on an NPC's fatepoint count, which I get the sense most GMs don't, and I agree, it's cheating the player out of that preparation stage.

[Haru]

The best way to go would certainly be the thaumaturgy option, that is the safest and should work pretty much all the time.

Another idea is one I had a while ago, though I have not tested it yet, so take it as the experiment it is. Basically it would be to adopt the grappling rules to a sort of wizards-mind-duel. The attacking wizard would need to put up a maneuver from one of his spells, that is related to shutting the other wizard down. Once established, he can tag it to enter the other wizard into a conviction-grapple. Since it is not physical, the wizard can not use the "move" option, and inflicting (in this case mental) stress would probably bring you dangerously close to lawbreaker territory. However, as long as you roll your conviction higher than he does, you got him blocked out.

[Lavecki121]

The way that me and my friends do is just have a pile of FP for all NPC's equal to one for every PC

[Deadmanwalking]

That's provided you're keeping close track on an NPC's fatepoint count, which I get the sense most GMs don't, and I agree, it's cheating the player out of that preparation stage.

I sure as hell do. Why wouldn't you? I mean, it's one to two at most for most enemies, so it's not like it's that hard...

Heck, even if doing the pool method (which seems a reasonable alternative), this'd remove an FP from the pool.

[CrispyXIV]

I sure as hell do. Why wouldn't you? I mean, it's one to two at most for most enemies, so it's not like it's that hard...

Heck, even if doing the pool method (which seems a reasonable alternative), this'd remove an FP from the pool.

I agree.  I've only run a couple sessions, but managing Fate Points for NPC's seems hugely important, and exactly the sort of thing that should be done legitly.  A 0 refresh baddy finds them HUGELY important (and losing one would be equally huge), since had to have a significant setback to get one in the first place.  I wouldn't feel bad at all if the Big Bad dropped one buying out of a bad Compel, and I'd hope my PC's would realise exactly how big of a setback that is for him.

'Cheating' or fudging Fate Point totals would seem really... unpleasant in this system.  As the GM, I already have Compels and such as tools, playing loose with Fate Points seems underhanded somehow.

[Mr. Death]

I sure as hell do. Why wouldn't you? I mean, it's one to two at most for most enemies, so it's not like it's that hard...

Heck, even if doing the pool method (which seems a reasonable alternative), this'd remove an FP from the pool.

I generally don't have my NPCs ever use fate points at all (or at least, the enemy NPCs because they tend to be badguys tailored to fight groups--friendly NPCs I treat as GMPCs), so them spending one means little as far as their resources go.

And if a player's going to go to the trouble to try and shut down an NPC's major ability, it seems unfair to me to have the NPC buy out for the meager price of one fate point and retain their full faculty for the duration of the scene.

[Deadmanwalking]

I agree.  I've only run a couple sessions, but managing Fate Points for NPC's seems hugely important, and exactly the sort of thing that should be done legitly.  A 0 refresh baddy finds them HUGELY important (and losing one would be equally huge), since had to have a significant setback to get one in the first place.  I wouldn't feel bad at all if the Big Bad dropped one buying out of a bad Compel, and I'd hope my PC's would realise exactly how big of a setback that is for him.

'Cheating' or fudging Fate Point totals would seem really... unpleasant in this system.  As the GM, I already have Compels and such as tools, playing loose with Fate Points seems underhanded somehow.

This. So very, very, much this. NPCs FP totals are every bit as important as PCs by the default rules, and any House Rule that changes that is...potentially problematic, given how closely the FP and Aspect mechanics are tied into everything else in the system. The pooled method works (though I've argued before and will again that, for fairness, people using this method should let PCs freely swap FP around), but just saying they have as many as they want or the GM finds convenient? No, no, no.

I generally don't have my NPCs ever use fate points at all (or at least, the enemy NPCs because they tend to be badguys tailored to fight groups--friendly NPCs I treat as GMPCs), so them spending one means little as far as their resources go.

That's reasonable enough if it works for you...but not how the system is intended to work at all. So of limited utility for people who are using the system as written.

And if a player's going to go to the trouble to try and shut down an NPC's major ability, it seems unfair to me to have the NPC buy out for the meager price of one fate point and retain their full faculty for the duration of the scene.

But if they buy out, the PC, too, is free to do other things, so all they've really lost is one turn, and cost the enemy an FP...that's a pretty standard turn maneuvering, IMO. They tried, and it didn't work, but did weaken the enemy. Now they can try something else.