Author Topic: New GM and (thematic) rules questions.  (Read 3454 times)

Offline Ard3

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
New GM and (thematic) rules questions.
« on: March 05, 2013, 02:01:38 PM »
Hello. I might be starting a game soon and there is some things that I need advice on. Mostly about thematic rules, because I am going to try DFRPG Fate Core which hopefully causes minimum amount of head aches.

1. Thresholds, if coming in uninvited:
* Blocks all kinds of spellcasting.
* Blocks other active powers(Glamours, Incite Emotion, Domination etc.)
a) Passive effects? WCVirgin, werecreature or changeling Speed/Strength/Toughness etc. Any effect when entering or inside? Any difference on are they always on or limited by shapechanging or feeding dependency?
b) Owing favour to fairie, unspecified when or what, fairy comes to collect and no other intentions. Does that count as invitation? Can that fairie do that stab-your-own-hand-if-refuse thing that Mab did at one point?
c) True Faith abilities. Probably can get in just fine since mortal, but using these while inside?

2. Exact words trickery and fairies. How would you think about these:
a) "I am willing to consider if (insert favour)." After favour willing to listen but since no actual promises made, can just say no after some discussion.
b) "One favour from (plural) you." While pointing all of them. From fairy's perspective that is one favour from each.
c) If players try to negotiate about favour, promising not to ask anything dangerous for them. Then ordering, not asking, them to do something. Or just pointing out that according to fairy's judgement, favour should not be dangerous. Or just trading the favour(s) forward to another fairy that is not bound by first ones promises.
I ask because while I want to drive home the fact that fairies think literally and differently than humans, I really don't want to be a dick.
Players have not read the books.

Other questions might come later.

Offline Crion

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 285
  • "Don't. Mess. With. Librarians."
    • View Profile
Re: New GM and (thematic) rules questions.
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2013, 03:09:23 PM »
1. Thresholds, if coming in uninvited:
* Blocks all kinds of spellcasting.
* Blocks other active powers(Glamours, Incite Emotion, Domination etc.)
a) Passive effects? WCVirgin, werecreature or changeling Speed/Strength/Toughness etc. Any effect when entering or inside? Any difference on are they always on or limited by shapechanging or feeding dependency?
b) Owing favour to fairie, unspecified when or what, fairy comes to collect and no other intentions. Does that count as invitation? Can that fairie do that stab-your-own-hand-if-refuse thing that Mab did at one point?
c) True Faith abilities. Probably can get in just fine since mortal, but using these while inside?

Sounds about right on the first note. You have to overcome the block strength of the Threshold to make a spell (or similar effect) work, but I don't think it'd fizzle glamours/dominates.

As for the passive effects you are asking about, I would either do a compel on their High Concept to keep them from accessing their powers, or use the Threshold as a "negation" of their powers; all powers reduced by the Threshold's Rating while inside uninvited.
I know in Ghost Story, it was noted that the White Court Vampire that walked into Murphy's house (which has a decent threshold) left almost all of her power at the door, so I think the above could work.

As for owing the favour, something like this was mentioned in Cold Days, specifically
(click to show/hide)
. You should also note that when Mab did her little harassment of Harry, he was in his office, not his home, so she was exempt from this rule.

Finally, True Faith is probably the exception to the rule, as it tends to almost ALWAYS be the exception, especially considering that it cannot worth when acting against your faith. So if you are in the home of an Evil Warlock, uninvited, you could probably let loose with your Faith Powers as long as you were trying to stop the Warlock from harming someone (and not using your powers to steal, for example).

2. Exact words trickery and fairies. How would you think about these:
a) "I am willing to consider if (insert favour)." After favour willing to listen but since no actual promises made, can just say no after some discussion.
b) "One favour from (plural) you." While pointing all of them. From fairy's perspective that is one favour from each.
c) If players try to negotiate about favour, promising not to ask anything dangerous for them. Then ordering, not asking, them to do something. Or just pointing out that according to fairy's judgement, favour should not be dangerous. Or just trading the favour(s) forward to another fairy that is not bound by first ones promises.

This whole section is a can of worms waiting to happen. Yes, they take it literally, but also remember that the Sidhe are EXPERTS at this, and it is rare when a mortal gets and advantage.

For example, for your first note, the Sidhe would be required to perform that favour, but that may not be done EXACTLY as expected...and they would probably do something to ensure that whatever they were asking for would be "required" anyway (like Mab in Summer Knight).

For your second, it could be taken as a favour from each one...or a mass favour that they all have to participate in. In fact, when one of those fae is asked for a favour, the whole mess of them could show up and make things much more complicated than expected.

This last one is all lawyer~ish. Negotiation is normal, but it is something to look out for.

I ask because while I want to drive home the fact that fairies think literally and differently than humans, I really don't want to be a dick.

When it comes to using the Sidhe, I have YET to see a GM not be a dick to get that point across.

Players have not read the books.

Isn't that usually the case?
"Smilies exist because no one has bothered to make a sarcasm font." Lost_Heretic
"I don't care about whose DNA has recombined with whose. When everything goes to hell, the people who stand by you without flinching--they are your family." Harry Dresden

Offline Ard3

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: New GM and (thematic) rules questions.
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2013, 05:18:32 PM »
I know in Ghost Story, it was noted that the White Court Vampire that walked into Murphy's house (which has a decent threshold) left almost all of her power at the door, so I think the above could work.

As for owing the favour, something like this was mentioned in Cold Days, specifically
(click to show/hide)
. You should also note that when Mab did her little harassment of Harry, he was in his office, not his home, so she was exempt from this rule.
I had forgotten these, thanks.
So if denied, the fairy would leave, but could wait outside for the moment they go outside threshold and then do that or something similar.

Finally, True Faith is probably the exception to the rule, as it tends to almost ALWAYS be the exception, especially considering that it cannot worth when acting against your faith. So if you are in the home of an Evil Warlock, uninvited, you could probably let loose with your Faith Powers as long as you were trying to stop the Warlock from harming someone (and not using your powers to steal, for example).
Hmm, intent matters. Going for selfless and/or general good reasons and they work. Going for no particular or selflish reasons and they dont.

This whole section is a can of worms waiting to happen.
I know, thats why I am thinking what would be storywise interesting but not dicking over players.

For example, for your first note, the Sidhe would be required to perform that favour, but that may not be done EXACTLY as expected...and they would probably do something to ensure that whatever they were asking for would be "required" anyway (like Mab in Summer Knight).
Maybe I wasnt clear. Fairy is asking them to do something before she is willing to negotiate on a bigger thing.

For your second, it could be taken as a favour from each one...or a mass favour that they all have to participate in. In fact, when one of those fae is asked for a favour, the whole mess of them could show up and make things much more complicated than expected.

This last one is all lawyer~ish. Negotiation is normal, but it is something to look out for.
Maybe. The whole point of scenario would be that that fairy has tricked an NPC to very unfavourable deal and negotiating with her is one possible solution to situation.
If/when negotiating start they would already know that she is tricky and will try to squeeze out as much as possible.

When it comes to using the Sidhe, I have YET to see a GM not be a dick to get that point across.
I know that is why I want to be careful.
My group is quite mature, if the situation makes a good story people wont mind little screwing over characters. I just have to make the following situations interesting and fun.
Isn't that usually the case?
Most often yes.

Offline Crion

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 285
  • "Don't. Mess. With. Librarians."
    • View Profile
Re: New GM and (thematic) rules questions.
« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2013, 05:28:22 PM »
I had forgotten these, thanks.
So if denied, the fairy would leave, but could wait outside for the moment they go outside threshold and then do that or something similar.

You're welcome.

And yes, exactly that.

Hmm, intent matters. Going for selfless and/or general good reasons and they work. Going for no particular or selflish reasons and they dont.

Intent ALWAYS matters. This is just a good example of it.

Maybe I wasnt clear. Fairy is asking them to do something before she is willing to negotiate on a bigger thing.

Ah-ha, that is clearer. Point still stands: the obligation on the deal was to LISTEN, but that is the extent of the bargain. The Fae could then say it would be an equal exchange to do another task.
You should also be careful with this one; if the Fae was given a favor of greater value than the favor of "listening," then they would have to balance the scales. You see plenty of this in the series, but specifically Grave Peril and Ghost Story.

Maybe. The whole point of scenario would be that that fairy has tricked an NPC to very unfavourable deal and negotiating with her is one possible solution to situation.
If/when negotiating start they would already know that she is tricky and will try to squeeze out as much as possible.

This is where you get into that exchange game. Have fun with that part!
"Smilies exist because no one has bothered to make a sarcasm font." Lost_Heretic
"I don't care about whose DNA has recombined with whose. When everything goes to hell, the people who stand by you without flinching--they are your family." Harry Dresden

Offline Ard3

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: New GM and (thematic) rules questions.
« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2013, 07:06:41 PM »
Ah-ha, that is clearer. Point still stands: the obligation on the deal was to LISTEN, but that is the extent of the bargain. The Fae could then say it would be an equal exchange to do another task.
You should also be careful with this one; if the Fae was given a favor of greater value than the favor of "listening," then they would have to balance the scales. You see plenty of this in the series, but specifically Grave Peril and Ghost Story.
Ok. Favour is basically simple. She wants one particular item, but it is behind reasonably strong threshold. She cant get it herself, but getting it isn't that hard for mortals. It is highly ethically dubious, but being a fae she doesn't even understand that.
Because they are mortals and not stopped by thresholds, from her perspective it is not a big thing.

This is where you get into that exchange game. Have fun with that part!
Oh I will  :D

Offline Deadmanwalking

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3534
    • View Profile
Re: New GM and (thematic) rules questions.
« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2013, 10:41:37 PM »
Hello. I might be starting a game soon and there is some things that I need advice on. Mostly about thematic rules, because I am going to try DFRPG Fate Core which hopefully causes minimum amount of head aches.

1. Thresholds, if coming in uninvited:
* Blocks all kinds of spellcasting.
* Blocks other active powers(Glamours, Incite Emotion, Domination etc.)

Yes. At least ones that cross the threshold, a Glamour to look different or be invisible wouldn't necessarily do that.

a) Passive effects? WCVirgin, werecreature or changeling Speed/Strength/Toughness etc. Any effect when entering or inside? Any difference on are they always on or limited by shapechanging or feeding dependency?

Uh...they talk about this, with the power of the threshold reducing shifts of effectiveness. Which seems right-ish. I might have them reduce Refresh worth of powers instead if house-ruling...

b) Owing favour to fairie, unspecified when or what, fairy comes to collect and no other intentions. Does that count as invitation? Can that fairie do that stab-your-own-hand-if-refuse thing that Mab did at one point?

Hmmm. That's not an invitation...but your obligation to the Faerie (and the stab your own hand type stuff) would ignore the threshold. This is a personal opinion not based on any rule directly.

c) True Faith abilities. Probably can get in just fine since mortal, but using these while inside?

Should work fine. None of them have effects outside the user that apply to people who can have Thresholds anyway.

2. Exact words trickery and fairies. How would you think about these:
a) "I am willing to consider if (insert favour)." After favour willing to listen but since no actual promises made, can just say no after some discussion.

Yes, that's correct. They have to actually consider it, but they don't have to agree.

b) "One favour from (plural) you." While pointing all of them. From fairy's perspective that is one favour from each.

I'm...not sure that's valid. They'd all have to knowingly agree for that to be binding. I mean, one of them agreeing and the rest all thinking it just applies to that guy won't bind the others. There's also no reason for the Faerie to be less than clear on this. People who owe you are only useful inasmuch as they know they owe you.

c) If players try to negotiate about favour, promising not to ask anything dangerous for them. Then ordering, not asking, them to do something. Or just pointing out that according to fairy's judgement, favour should not be dangerous. Or just trading the favour(s) forward to another fairy that is not bound by first ones promises.

That's...all really shaky. Trading the favor away to someone who's dangerous is asking something dangerous of them, and the Fae would have to use their actual judgment as to whether the favor was dangerous. Ordering is also bullshit, either they can't order them at all, only ask and have things granted, or they can't order them into anything dangerous...those are the only ways I can think of the wording working out. No, what you should have them do if they need a dangerous favor is much simpler: "Bring me three children to devour." That's not dangerous, just horribly immoral, after all...then have them blackmail the PCs with the promise of not asking anything immoral of them. Possibly gaining two favors for the price of one.

I ask because while I want to drive home the fact that fairies think literally and differently than humans, I really don't want to be a dick.

Have the difference in perspective work to their advantage some, too. If they help the Faerie without some deal in place, have them show up later and save their asses, noting that the debt is paid. Stuff like that.

Players have not read the books.

Sometimes it's more fun that way.

Offline Vairelome

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 904
    • View Profile
Re: New GM and (thematic) rules questions.
« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2013, 11:37:40 PM »
In character, remember that Fae tend to be picky about favors being exchanged for equal value (though the "valuation" calculation can be extremely subjective).  If the PCs do the Fae a significant favor, "Haha, due to phrasing I owe you NOTHING!" doesn't seem properly in theme for the Fae.

Out of character, consider the opinion of the NPC Fae that you want to inspire in your players.  If your players feel that they got bent over a barrel in the negotiations process while making a reasonable effort to be competent, this will likely inspire hard feelings and a disinclination to negotiate in the future.  (Yes, if the players actually screw up--and know they screwed up--there should be some pain, but this should be balanced by making sure the story has some resolvable path.  "On rails" is bad.  "No conceivable successful outcome" is worse.)

Be careful about employing seriously aggressive word-lawyering on your players.  It's like spice; some is good to get the proper Fae flavor across, but people don't generally dig in to a heaping pile of curry powder.

Offline Ard3

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: New GM and (thematic) rules questions.
« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2013, 01:36:57 AM »
Uh...they talk about this, with the power of the threshold reducing shifts of effectiveness. Which seems right-ish. I might have them reduce Refresh worth of powers instead if house-ruling...
Hmm.. Maybe reduce refresh worth powers, starting from the most "aggressive". Strenght goes first, dunno after that.

Hmmm. That's not an invitation...but your obligation to the Faerie (and the stab your own hand type stuff) would ignore the threshold. This is a personal opinion not based on any rule directly.
So in your opinion if character and fae can communicate, for example through open window/door, and are different side of threshold the fae could order character to do something embarrasing and/or nasty, but not really come in?

Yes, that's correct. They have to actually consider it, but they don't have to agree.
In character, remember that Fae tend to be picky about favors being exchanged for equal value (though the "valuation" calculation can be extremely subjective).
Oh she will. From her perspective it will be sure, gradual power or the ace in the sleeve of having characters owing her.

I'm...not sure that's valid. They'd all have to knowingly agree for that to be binding. I mean, one of them agreeing and the rest all thinking it just applies to that guy won't bind the others. There's also no reason for the Faerie to be less than clear on this. People who owe you are only useful inasmuch as they know they owe you.
Just a note, in my native language singular and plural you are completely different words. Still, dunno what to do with this. Might give them roll so notice or compel not to notice.
Settings wise, I feel that if they go to negotiate with a fae without preparing for trickery and knowing to be precise, they should be somewhat tricked. She does have aspect "Beware what you wish for".
Of course I will tell them to first find out who/what they are facing and what they should expect. And they will know that the previous person they know that negotiated with her got badly over his head.

That's...all really shaky. Trading the favor away to someone who's dangerous is asking something dangerous of them, and the Fae would have to use their actual judgment as to whether the favor was dangerous. Ordering is also bullshit, either they can't order them at all, only ask and have things granted, or they can't order them into anything dangerous...those are the only ways I can think of the wording working out. No, what you should have them do if they need a dangerous favor is much simpler: "Bring me three children to devour." That's not dangerous, just horribly immoral, after all...then have them blackmail the PCs with the promise of not asking anything immoral of them. Possibly gaining two favors for the price of one.
Out of character, consider the opinion of the NPC Fae that you want to inspire in your players.  If your players feel that they got bent over a barrel in the negotiations process while making a reasonable effort to be competent, this will likely inspire hard feelings and a disinclination to negotiate in the future.  (Yes, if the players actually screw up--and know they screwed up--there should be some pain, but this should be balanced by making sure the story has some resolvable path.  "On rails" is bad.  "No conceivable successful outcome" is worse.)

Be careful about employing seriously aggressive word-lawyering on your players.  It's like spice; some is good to get the proper Fae flavor across, but people don't generally dig in to a heaping pile of curry powder.
Yeah, I am dropping this. Severely limiting those favours could be a concession if she fails negotiations. Otherwise she will give no promises about them. In that case trading them away is a possibility.
Bit related to that, is it possible to do social attack against more than one person at a time? Like spray or zonewide. Does that even makes sense?

Have the difference in perspective work to their advantage some, too. If they help the Faerie without some deal in place, have them show up later and save their asses, noting that the debt is paid. Stuff like that.
Very good idea, thanks.

Sometimes it's more fun that way.
Probably yeah. Might get interesting when creatures aren't what they expect.
"One zombie? Phew that is so eas... Did that thing just run through wall without slowing down?!"

Offline Deadmanwalking

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3534
    • View Profile
Re: New GM and (thematic) rules questions.
« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2013, 02:03:01 AM »
Hmm.. Maybe reduce refresh worth powers, starting from the most "aggressive". Strenght goes first, dunno after that.

Something like that, yeah. Or reduce each power individually. Bear in mind that thresholds can actually kill vampires who try to enter uninvited. They're intentionally nasty.

So in your opinion if character and fae can communicate, for example through open window/door, and are different side of threshold the fae could order character to do something embarrasing and/or nasty, but not really come in?

Yeah, that'd be my interpretation.

Oh she will. From her perspective it will be sure, gradual power or the ace in the sleeve of having characters owing her.

Cool.  :)

Just a note, in my native language singular and plural you are completely different words. Still, dunno what to do with this. Might give them roll so notice or compel not to notice.

Still, they'd need to explicitly agree. And there's a difference between 'you' collectively owing one favor and 'you' each individually owing a favor. The wording you're using seems to favor the first interpretation, and the Fae would know that, and would be pretty much forced to say precisely what they meant, though perhaps in a non-obvious way.

The Fae aren't actually able to go with whatever interpretation of ambiguous wording they want, they need to stick to the letter of things. Their tricks are more like a very explicit agreement that says exactly what it means...but which implies it means something else to readers without ever saying it, than they are something you can just legitimately read two ways.

Settings wise, I feel that if they go to negotiate with a fae without preparing for trickery and knowing to be precise, they should be somewhat tricked. She does have aspect "Beware what you wish for".

Totally. But have it be what they actually wish for. Personally, I wouldn't have many verbal traps set ahead of time...those aren't really the Fae's style, instead, I'd leap on any verbal mistakes they make. More opportunistic than planned in advance, y'know? You could compel them to make some, or have the Fae use social combat to force such things, but it's much more in-character for the Fae to take advantage of the mortal's mistakes n wording than it is to be intentionally deceptive by anything but omission.

Of course I will tell them to first find out who/what they are facing and what they should expect. And they will know that the previous person they know that negotiated with her got badly over his head.

Good policy. Maybe give them some opportunity to research the Fae?

Yeah, I am dropping this. Severely limiting those favours could be a concession if she fails negotiations. Otherwise she will give no promises about them. In that case trading them away is a possibility.

Sounds workable.

Bit related to that, is it possible to do social attack against more than one person at a time? Like spray or zonewide. Does that even makes sense?

Officially? No. But if the Fae's better than them, she can focus on one target, take them out, and put them in a position the other PCs desperately need to bargain them out of...

Very good idea, thanks.

Happy to be of assistance.  :)

Probably yeah. Might get interesting when creatures aren't what they expect.
"One zombie? Phew that is so eas... Did that thing just run through wall without slowing down?!"

Heh. Yeah.

Offline Ard3

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: New GM and (thematic) rules questions.
« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2013, 10:55:35 AM »
Still, they'd need to explicitly agree. And there's a difference between 'you' collectively owing one favor and 'you' each individually owing a favor. The wording you're using seems to favor the first interpretation, and the Fae would know that, and would be pretty much forced to say precisely what they meant, though perhaps in a non-obvious way.
Hmm, Maybe start at one collective favour and get more if she takes out some of them in social combat.

The Fae aren't actually able to go with whatever interpretation of ambiguous wording they want, they need to stick to the letter of things. Their tricks are more like a very explicit agreement that says exactly what it means...but which implies it means something else to readers without ever saying it, than they are something you can just legitimately read two ways.

Totally. But have it be what they actually wish for. Personally, I wouldn't have many verbal traps set ahead of time...those aren't really the Fae's style, instead, I'd leap on any verbal mistakes they make. More opportunistic than planned in advance, y'know? You could compel them to make some, or have the Fae use social combat to force such things, but it's much more in-character for the Fae to take advantage of the mortal's mistakes n wording than it is to be intentionally deceptive by anything but omission.
Good points, thanks. I just hope I'll catch them do some verbal blunder and try to use that. Far from my strong area, but I think I will get better at improvising by GMing DFRPG.
 
Good policy. Maybe give them some opportunity to research the Fae?
They will have. And before big negotiations they know the NPC got screwed and that small favour for her to reconsider has probably already happened.

Officially? No. But if the Fae's better than them, she can focus on one target, take them out, and put them in a position the other PCs desperately need to bargain them out of...

Social is her strongest area. We haven't made characters yet, so I don't know how good they will be.
She is weak at physical combat, but with Inhuman Speed and Glamours catching her is pretty hard. If it comes to that she will just run away.

I use way too many quotes  :)