Gaming Discussion

For all things gaming related.


Dresden Files Accelerated Edition

   
Except that if someone is both a White Court Vampire and the Winter Knight, as my example, it doesn't make sense for them to not have both weaknesses. And, as Tedronai pointed out, there is no reason for someone to buy a weakness when they are not getting anything out of that. Spending refresh on something that is purely detrimental just for fluff is a bad design choice, regardless if the game is narrativistic or not.

The fact that the system works as it is for some cases is irrelevant; there are cases for which it doesn't work. Trying to shoehorn every case into a context where the current system makes sense is not a solution.

Your example proves Tedronai wrong, though. He says that no player would intentionally buy additional weaknesses. Your example is exactly when you would have to buy the weaknesses, because you want to have two completely separate Mantles. The cost of being a Knight of a Faerie Court is that the power of the Mantle is disrupted when impaled by iron and directly tied to the favor of the being that granted you the power. One of the limitations on the power of a White Court Vampire is that they are burnt by the touch of love. If the narrative you are trying to present is that you are both a Winter Knight and a Vampire, then you need both of those Conditions, period.

And, again, every single Mantle that has a purely detrimental Condition also either gets more stunts or gets to act on a higher end of the Scale. So its not like you aren't getting something out of it by having that Mantle.

You have yet to present me with a case that doesn't work with the system. To have two Mantles, you have to fully buy one. Can't afford it? There is a compromise and examples in there of how that would look, one where someone intends to rebuy their old Mantle and one where they decide to move on from it. Not being willing to pay or compromise isn't being shoehorned.

Fate is not a wholly narrative system. Its pretty clear that your mechanics have to back up your fluff and define how you get to narrate. And the metagame has always been an integral part of that as well. If you were in a position where you are offered a new Mantle, but can't afford it and aren't willing to compromise, then your narrative should reflect that. You turn the offer down or postpone it until you can take it.

If a player decides to narrate how they unleash a giant murder attack that hits every enemy in sight and instant kills them all and is super awesome and completely controlled, but actually didn't spend any FPs, invoke any aspects on the scene, and rolled a -4 with a skill she has at Mediocre, is that a case of the game not working? Or is that a case of the player being out of sync with how the game works?

Nothing in the rules forces that example's player to buy Ferroburned, Chee.

EDIT: Impaled by Cold Iron, I mean. Messed the name up with the true Fae one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverkiss View Post
And, as Tedronai pointed out, there is no reason for someone to buy a weakness when they are not getting anything out of that. Spending refresh on something that is purely detrimental just for fluff is a bad design choice, regardless if the game is narrativistic or not.
Ok, first I should say that I'm not a FATE player. So, mechanically, I have no idea what you guys are talking about. But, this statement really kind of stood out to me. Am I the only one who has taken a disadvantage for no benefit, just because I thought it added something to the character? Doing so isn't bad design, it is good RPing.

I think the point of what Silver's saying is is that if you have someone who wants to play a character who has two Mantles, the idea is that you buy the second set of powers and weaknesses. ...But why would you buy the weaknesses? Now, in some cases, sure, you may be playing someone who has some vampiric-like abilities, but isn't a vampire. Maybe they're a wizard with some emotional pull abilities or something. And that's fine for narrative, depending on concept.

However, if you're playing with the full Vampire Mantle and then want to add a second Mantle for your concept, why buy the weaknesses? They'll only hurt you. You can say that "well, you lack the Impaled by Cold Iron weakness so you're not actually a Knight of Winter", but you effectively are if you bought all of the powers. The only difference is that you have none of the weaknesses attached to Knight of Winter. You're basically a souped up version.

Just from a mechanical perspective, it's bad sense to spend refresh on a weakness. It's narratively interesting, but it's also just bad sense. It hurts you doubly because you have to spend refresh AND the thing you're buying is detrimental to you in the first place.

At least, that's my impression of what they're trying to get across and I rather agree. It seems silly to expect a player to pay for a weakness and, moreover, not enforcing the acquisition of a weakness means that they can just skip out on buying it.

To me, it feels like if someone wanted a second Mantle, the weaknesses would be something A) Attached to them once they bough the first/last power as a sign of their entrance/completion on the path (them being inducted as a Knight of the Faerie or finally becoming a vampire), B) attach certain powers to certain weaknesses (you want to add Knight of the Faerie, so you get Faster, Stronger, Tougher, but that comes with Impaled by Cold Iron), C) acquire the weaknesses after getting a certain number of powers (if you're adding Vampire, you have 4 Core stunts, so after getting 2 or 3 you acquire all of the Vampire Mantle's weaknesses).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legate71 View Post
Ok, first I should say that I'm not a FATE player. So, mechanically, I have no idea what you guys are talking about. But, this statement really kind of stood out to me. Am I the only one who has taken a disadvantage for no benefit, just because I thought it added something to the character? Doing so isn't bad design, it is good RPing.
It is bad design, though. On the one hand, no, taking a disadvantage isn't really inherently bad. It can be very interesting to narrative. But it can also be bad design. In this case, you are losing both a power/Stunt and a Fate Point. It'd be kind of like taking a feat in Pathfinder that just gave you a penalty to your Constitution and nothing else. You could and, sure, that has some interesting potential for narrative... but you also just hurt yourself in a variety of ways in situations to come and paid a feat slot for the privilege of doing so.

Yeah ... There's a difference between 'taking a disadvantage for no [mechanical] benefit because it adds something [narratively] to the character' vs 'paying a mechanical price to take a disadvantage for no mechanical benefit because it adds something narratively to the character'.


From a game design perspective, the mechanical price to gain a detrimental trait should never be greater than the simple fact that you now have a detrimental trait.


If, as Chee has stated several times, you think detrimental traits exist to balance out Mantles which operate at greater Scale (they don't, see the abundance of Mortal Mantles with purely detrimental conditions), the simple solution to that is to charge players for increases to Scale (after giving them the detriments automatically and for free)

Ok, just my two cents, generally speaking. You have a PC who started out as a Red Court Vampire, and during play they were bestowed the status of Winter Knight. From the start it is a bit of a head scratcher, but I'll go with it. As the PC isn't Fae I can certainly see saying "you now have the weakness to iron disadvantage" a little odd. However, there should be some kind of hindrance to offset the advantage of the post. Perhaps, the PC has to take a Vow, or Duty to support the Court in all things. I'm sure the "spirit" of the FATE rules were written to be open to certain interpretations.

The original example was White Court vampire, actually. And the weakness to iron is a part of the Winter Knight mantle; since the powers of the Winter Knight derive from Faerie, iron disrupts them. That's why the Faerie Knight mantle has the "Impaled by Cold Iron" condition, and that's why characters lose their Winter Knight powers when impaled by cold iron in the source novels.

As for saying disadvantages could be worked around through oath/vow/duty... sure, but that's a work around, not a solution to the presented problem. It's a fringe case, sure, but the point remains that the system does not support the addition of a second mantle in a satisfactory manner to me (and others), only the swapping of mantles, and no matter how fringe it is we have shown that in some cases the addition of a secondary mantle instead of simply switching to a new one makes sense as per the source material.

EDIT: Rewrote my second paragraph to be clearer.

The Impaled by Cold Iron Condition doesn't cause the Knight to be more harmed by iron than by other materials as true for the Fae (that's the realm of Ferroburned). It just bars the Knight from accessing their Fae powers, as the iron interferes with their connection to their patron Court. I do not see how be any less true for a Vampire somehow imbued with such power than it would for a mortal.

The Vow or Duty, on the other hand, is represented by Disvavored, which Knights of the Faerie Courts also gain.

edit: ninja'd

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverkiss View Post
Nothing in the rules forces that example's player to buy Ferroburned, Chee.

EDIT: Impaled by Cold Iron, I mean. Messed the name up with the true Fae one.
Only if you ignore how Mantles are built and are suppose to work. If the example's player wants to say their character is a Knight of a Faerie Court, they have to have all the mechanical pieces to support that and prove it true. Each of the 'weakness' Conditions add some kind of mechanic into the mix that matches up to how a Mantle's power is restricted. They are necessary in expressing the Mantle. If you don't have the whole thing, then you can't say you have the Mantle. If a Winter Knight's power is cut off by being impaled by iron, but your power is not cut off by being impaled by iron, are you the Winter Knight?

Nobody is forcing the person to take the second Mantle. It was a decision they made. There were other ways of getting certain things than deciding they wanted the whole Mantle, but that was the road they chose.

I don't know, its whatever. I'm, personally, fine with saying that a person has to pay for all the pieces of the second Mantle if that's the narrative they are pursuing. The book provides an excellent example of someone buying their way into fully having two Mantles in the form of the current Winter Knight. But, you, and others, feel that it is bad design for someone to have to buy the parts of the Mantle that represent its limitation. I get it. I disagree, but I do get it.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Last Database Backup 2017-09-20 09:00:07am local time
Myth-Weavers Status