Evocation Blocks: Too Weak?

[Lavecki121]

So wait.. What you are saying is that a GM should use a compel to cause an enemy to attack a character who has a sheild because the leader of the group told his minions to attack said sheild holder?

[Mr. Death]

First, that's not how video games work. AI enemies are generally much dumber than people, and random mooks in DFRPG tend to be as smart as people because they tend to be people.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm more talking about the player viewpoint where every conflict boils down almost entirely to, "How can I reduce the opposition to nothing in the most efficient way possible?" instead of taking into account things like, "Well, this goon has a grudge against me because of _____" or "I'm going to attack this guy because he said my mother was a hamster and my father smelt of elderberries."

Second, it's just plain rude to dismiss people's arguments like that.

I'm not entirely sure where I did this.

And third, people generally refer to RPG stuff as video-gamey when they're trying to denigrate it. (Especially when D&D4 is involved.) So if you're not aiming to be insulting, you should avoid the comparison.

Again, I think you misunderstand me. I'm saying that DFRPG doesn't and shouldn't be video-gamey--that fights are just as much about roleplaying and being in character as they are about winning the fight (occasionally more so). That a good GM will have the opposition act in character rather than just focusing on the most optimal course of action.

The issue I have with that is pretty much all of that should be handled with compels.  I don't feel a GM should be expected to handicap themselves, the other players certainly don't do this.

Compels are what the GM uses to monkey wrench players and keep them from taking the most optimal action every time.  I don't see why it should be any different when the tables are turned, seeing as how it's within the players ability to call compels on npc's.

Granted, but really, a Red Court Vampire should still be acting like a Red Court Vampire even if the players aren't spending fate points. If a powerful wizard is attacking the group to get at your wizard specifically, it doesn't make much sense if all of his actions end up targeting everyone besides your wizard just because you threw up a block. Call it a self compel if you must, but your nameless mooks aren't going to get much use out of a fate point anyway.

And I wouldn't say the players can't be expected to handicap themselves--mine do it all the time. I've got a cop that will always spend his first turn on a verbal warning against something that can pass as human (usually resulting in him getting decked at least once before he can open fire) and on another occasion charged into melee against a Black Court vampire instead of reloading or using his shotgun just because the vampire pissed him off, a couple wizards who regularly self-compel to injure themselves by calling up too much power, and so on.

[Sanctaphrax]

I'm not entirely sure where I did this.

You said that the reason people think evocation blocks are weak is an error in their approach to gaming. That's pretty dismissive.

Again, I think you misunderstand me. I'm saying that DFRPG doesn't and shouldn't be video-gamey--that fights are just as much about roleplaying and being in character as they are about winning the fight (occasionally more so). That a good GM will have the opposition act in character rather than just focusing on the most optimal course of action.

The issue here is not a misunderstanding.

I just have little tolerance for "if you were a roleplayer and not a rollplayer, you wouldn't be having this problem" and everything like it.

And having vampires not attack somebody they don't think they can hurt makes perfect sense.

[blackstaff67]

You said that the reason people think evocation blocks are weak is an error in their approach to gaming. That's pretty dismissive.

The issue here is not a misunderstanding.

I just have little tolerance for "if you were a roleplayer and not a rollplayer, you wouldn't be having this problem" and everything like it.

And having vampires not attack somebody they don't think they can hurt makes perfect sense.

I'm going to tread carefully here since many people that have posted in this thread seem to be so much smarter than I am and I do not wish to give offense or insult, especially given my preference for a quick cheap laugh.  With respect to the both of you, I believe what this may boil down to is 1) the concept/role of the Adversarial GM in a DFRPG and 2) the unsuitability of such a Storyteller in a DFRPG, regardless of my own thoughts on the subject.  (For those not clued-in, an Adversarial GM is a Referee that does more than just make your character's life interesting, but actively tries to kill or stymie the player character at every turn with all NPC's optimized to take you down, complete knowledge of your strengths and weaknesses, etc.)

[Dracorex]

I suppose I'm not really qualified to comment on this, but really, it just seems to boil down to keeping a balance between 1) not playing NPCs like they're omniscient, and 2) not playing NPCs like they're complete idiots.

[Mr. Death]

You said that the reason people think evocation blocks are weak is an error in their approach to gaming. That's pretty dismissive.

Apologies, then. More I meant they were making a very narrow argument--saying that the blocks are weak in the situation of only blocking yourself when the enemies are apparently aware of all the in-game math and acting in perfect concert accordingly, which really isn't how either side of the fight would realistically act.

The issue here is not a misunderstanding.

I just have little tolerance for "if you were a roleplayer and not a rollplayer, you wouldn't be having this problem" and everything like it.

Real quick, what does the "r" in "DFRPG" stand for again?

I'm saying that roleplaying should be as much of a concern as rolling dice. For characters and the GM. You wouldn't let your players capitalize on knowledge they have but that the characters couldn't, right? So why should their opposition get that benefit?

And having vampires not attack somebody they don't think they can hurt makes perfect sense.

And how, pray tell, can the vampires tell that they won't be able to hurt someone? A vampire during melee isn't going to think, "Okay, that's a 6-shift block, and my Fists skill is only 3, so statistically speaking I have very little chance of getting through it." A vampire during melee is thinking, "If I smack it hard enough, I can get through that wimpy wizard's shield!"

As you yourself have said numerous times, the mechanics are an abstract--Harry throwing up a 4-shift shield probably looks almost exactly the same as Harry putting up an 8-shift shield. So how, exactly, are the non-mage members of the opposition exactly calculating his spell power in such a way as to predict who they have a reasonable chance of attacking? A vampire, untrained in magic, shouldn't have any idea of a shield's strength until he's tried to get through it.

[Deadmanwalking]

As you yourself have said numerous times, the mechanics are an abstract--Harry throwing up a 4-shift shield probably looks almost exactly the same as Harry putting up an 8-shift shield. So how, exactly, are the non-mage members of the opposition exactly calculating his spell power in such a way as to predict who they have a reasonable chance of attacking? A vampire, untrained in magic, shouldn't have any idea of a shield's strength until he's tried to get through it.

Staying out of the rest of the debate, I'd like to note this point. Underline it, so to speak. It's valid and well-stated. Figuring exactly how powerful a spell is should totally be doable. Hell, I'd likely give that info free to a wizard with the right element (and maybe even one without) with no rolls or anything...but it's by no means automatic for most non-spellcasters, meaning they should likely waste at least a turn on even the most impossibly powerful block just finding out how badass it is. Or, depending on temperament, ignore a Wizard protected by a block of any size, even ones they can easily get through, I suppose. Either's an exploitable and useful reaction.

You the GM might know how many shifts it is, because players have to tell you, but the characters you're playing probably don't. Now, in fairness, the same standards should be applied to players, but that's as easy as not telling them how many shifts the villain's block is...something I'd guess few GMs do at in person games anyway.

[JDK002]

Apologies, then. More I meant they were making a very narrow argument--saying that the blocks are weak in the situation of only blocking yourself when the enemies are apparently aware of all the in-game math and acting in perfect concert accordingly, which really isn't how either side of the fight would realistically act.
Real quick, what does the "r" in "DFRPG" stand for again?

I'm saying that roleplaying should be as much of a concern as rolling dice. For characters and the GM. You wouldn't let your players capitalize on knowledge they have but that the characters couldn't, right? So why should their opposition get that benefit?
And how, pray tell, can the vampires tell that they won't be able to hurt someone? A vampire during melee isn't going to think, "Okay, that's a 6-shift block, and my Fists skill is only 3, so statistically speaking I have very little chance of getting through it." A vampire during melee is thinking, "If I smack it hard enough, I can get through that wimpy wizard's shield!"

As you yourself have said numerous times, the mechanics are an abstract--Harry throwing up a 4-shift shield probably looks almost exactly the same as Harry putting up an 8-shift shield. So how, exactly, are the non-mage members of the opposition exactly calculating his spell power in such a way as to predict who they have a reasonable chance of attacking? A vampire, untrained in magic, shouldn't have any idea of a shield's strength until he's tried to get through it.

I mainly want to address "You wouldn't let your players capitalize on knowledge they have but that the characters couldn't, right? So why should their opposition get that benefit?"

in short, I do let them.  I know the information, they know the information.  Everyone pretending they don't just leads to a stilted game.  This is one of the unavoidable issues of player to character disconnect.  The only two options are to deliberatly hamstring yourself, or just let everyone play with the information that's on the table.  I personally prefer the latter, as there's still plenty of x-factors by way of declairations and compels on both sides.

The second issue I have with it is it treads on dangerously thin ice.  It's just shy of a GM dictating exactly what sort of actions a player can and cannot do.  If a GM tried to tell me I HAVE to attack the wizard behind an 8 shift shield I know I won't break, he better have a damn good compel in mind.  Having an npc do nothing put up a shield is not justification to force the players to attack them.

[Theonlyspiral]

With all due expect, I think it's not even close to a Gm telling you what you can't and cannot due. You have plenty of options even if you don't put up all the information. And no one here is talking about making anyone else's character do anything.

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't really see where the assumption that enemies can't tell roughly how strong your block is comes from.

I mean, sure. IC they aren't aware of the exact mechanics. But if the block is strong enough that they have no meaningful chance of getting through, I figure vampires or soldiers or whatever can tell.

There's nothing really solid in the rules about this either way. I'm just going by what makes sense to me, and what's likely to prevent metagaming.

But all that aside, I would like to restate what I've been trying to say for the last few posts.

It's bloody rude to tell people they're approaching things from a video game-y perspective, or to tell them they aren't really roleplaying, when they worry about mechanical imbalances.

And on top of being rude, it's pretentious and dumb. Pretentious because it implies that your method of playing pretend elfgames is somehow more sophisticated than other people's. Dumb because it implies that making stupid decisions is somehow more correct or more verisimilitudinous than making smart ones.

[Deadmanwalking]

I don't really see where the assumption that enemies can't tell roughly how strong your block is comes from.

I mean, sure. IC they aren't aware of the exact mechanics. But if the block is strong enough that they have no meaningful chance of getting through, I figure vampires or soldiers or whatever can tell.

There's nothing really solid in the rules about this either way. I'm just going by what makes sense to me, and what's likely to prevent metagaming.

Again, really staying out of the rest of this discussion and addressing this point specifically:

That doesn't seem to mesh up with the reality of the books very well, where Harry can create an invisible dome of force if he wants to, and Listens-to-Winds (and some of Elaine's) magical defenses take the form of simply not being there when things hit. And where Harry can't seem to tell exactly how strong Carlos's entropy shield is at first glance. And where even Kincaid, who's been around quite a while, hasn't seen a lot of pure battle wizardry. So...I'm a bit skeptical of most people being able to judge such magic at a glance.

[Sanctaphrax]

It might depend on the type of block...a stone wall is going to look as tough as it is.

But that provides a mechanical advantage for describing your spell in a specific way. Which is obviously unbalanced.

And it promotes metagaming by separating player knowledge from character knowledge.

So if people want to cast spells that other people can't identify, I'd expect them to pay extra. If I were to allow it in the first place.

[Deadmanwalking]

It might depend on the type of block...a stone wall is going to look as tough as it is.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Especially since most people don't really know that much about stone walls. I'd allow an Assessment to figure out how tough one was, but wouldn't allow it automatically on magic any more than I would with an actual stone wall (well, a Declaration would do for an actual one, I suppose).

But that provides a mechanical advantage for describing your spell in a specific way. Which is obviously unbalanced.

No, I'd apply that standard (ie: non-spellcasters need an Assessment to tell how badass a spell is) pretty much universally. It'd usually be a Lore assessment, though I might allow Scholarship or (in cases like the stone wall) Craftsmanship if those seemed appropriate.

And it promotes metagaming by separating player knowledge from character knowledge.

I usually don't tell characters mechanics stuff, just what appears to have happened, ie: 'You punch him and he loses teeth', or 'He raises a wall of fire'. I tell them any Consequences they inflict, but beyond that I usually don't worry about giving them mechanical details too much, as, IME, it tends to make things less narrative and more mechanic focused, which I personally like to avoid...if doing things this way the only one who needs to avoid metagaming is the GM...and he needs to do that anyway.

That's obviously not the only way to run a game...but it does sorta solve that particular problem.

So if people want to cast spells that other people can't identify, I'd expect them to pay extra. If I were to allow it in the first place.

There's not really a provision for that...but maybe there should be. Hmmmm.

[noclue]

It's unbalanced if the invisible dome is invisible and he stone wall looks like a stone wall?

[Tedronai]

Would someone like to clue me in as to just what it is about a solid wall of stone (or other opaque solid substance) seen only face-on that tells you, for instance, how thick that wall is?