Removing the Rule of 16

[AlexanderHowl]

What would happen if we got rid of the Rule of 16?

[Donny Brook]

The world would end.

[Mysterious Dark Lord v3.2]

Earthquakes ... volcanoes ... seven years of darkness ... floods ... locusts ... dogs and cats living together ... MASS HYSTERIA!!.

Maybe substitute a "Rule of 17" instead?

[tbone]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

What would happen if we got rid of the Rule of 16?

Actually, I was sort of wondering the same a couple of weeks ago (and forgot to ask the forum). That is, I was wondering what problem the rule is seeking to fix.

Basic Set doesn't make it clear, but Exploits in DFRPG does: "This prevents spellcasters from improving a single spell until it guarantees victory!"

Fair enough. But I still wonder: If a roll of 17+ is considered a critical failure anyway, is it meaningful to specify that some supernatural attack is capped at 16 (or more, depending on the resistance)?

I'm not sure I entirely understand the need for the rule. . . .

[Mr_Sandman]

In a setting that has supernatural attacks, without the Rule of 16 magic users, psis, etc. could raise their effective skill in one or more spells or abilities to the point that in quick contests it overwhelms the resistance of any characters limited to the human attribute range. In the most extreme case, the only hope for the defender to resist would be the attacker rolling a 17 or 18 (less than 2% chance).

It might cost a lot for a mage to buy the Sleep (or Mass Sleep) spell high enough to knock out someone with HT 20, 98% of the time (a skill of 32 would do it). But how often do you see HT 20 characters (or monsters)? Having the spell anywhere near that high essentially becomes an "I win" button against any targets that they are plausibly likely to encounter.

Take the Rule of 16 away if you want a world where effectively irresistible magic, mental, or other superhuman powers exist, and are available to PCs or their opponents. Maybe this could make for an interesting setting switch, but I'd be concerned about the player who makes a highly specialized mage who can short-circuit a lot of adventures. From the other side, not many players will be happy when they roll a 3 on their resistance for a character with Will 16, and still succumb to a Charm spell.

I could see it possibly resulting in an arms race, where some non-mage and non-psi characters would end up spending a good amount of their CP on things like Magic Resistance, Mind Shield, Psi-Static, etc. This is always tilted in favor of the GM, who knows what offensive and defensive abilities the PCs have, and can plan NPCs accordingly. But it might encourage players to waste points trying to defend against unknown threats.

[AlexanderHowl]

Defenses are rather cheap though (except DR). For example, Immunity to Mind Control (Cosmic, +50%) is only 45 CP and will defeat any attempt at Mind Control, Mind Probe, Mind Reading, etc., even from a deity. In light of the cheapness of defenses, do we need the Rule of 16?

[Mr_Sandman]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Defenses are rather cheap though (except DR). For example, Immunity to Mind Control (Cosmic, +50%) is only 45 CP and will defeat any attempt at Mind Control, Mind Probe, Mind Reading, etc., even from a deity. In light of the cheapness of defenses, do we need the Rule of 16?

Then you have a character who is totally immune to mind control. That, first of all, removes some story possibilities and tension from the game. Also that character can still be more or less automatically put to sleep or shape-shifted into a frog by wizard with the appropriate spell at a high enough level. A PC who doesn't want to be vulnerable to a potentially unbeatable attack will have to buy specific resistance or invulnerability not just against mind control, but every possible supernatural attack.

The relative cheapness of defense doesn't really take away the incentive for PCs to have overpowered supernatural attacks, because it's not plausible that every NPC the PCs encounter to have immunity, so they can still cakewalk the majority of opponents. And if the GM regularly gives immunity to the players' abilities to NPCs that are meant to be important challenges, the players will have a right to have their suspension of disbelief strained, and feel somewhat cheated.

Rule of 16 removes the all-or-nothing aspect, and discourages an 'arms race' between irresistible attacks and impenetrable defenses, which in the end could become a point drain for no really good reason.

There might be a better way to avoid those problems, as the Rule of 16 does seem to somewhat nerf powerful supernatural attackers. However my first impulse would be to tweak and playtest changes to the rule, rather than to just eliminate it.

[Mark Skarr]

We have removed it in a number of games. It didn't really change the games in a meaningful way.

It also made games where there are supposed to be incredibly powerful beings feel more powerful.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Defenses are rather cheap though (except DR). For example, Immunity to Mind Control (Cosmic, +50%) is only 45 CP and will defeat any attempt at Mind Control, Mind Probe, Mind Reading, etc., even from a deity. In light of the cheapness of defenses, do we need the Rule of 16?

That is not at all cheap in a 150-point or a 300-point game, and pre-supposes that the GM is willing to have characters buy something like that. It takes a lot of justifying for characters who aren't superhuman. Your gaming style may make that seem reasonable and cheap, but that conclusion does not generalise.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by tbone

I'm not sure I entirely understand the need for the rule. . . .

I just made a Quick Contest roll for a Character of mine, she rolled a 13 and succeeded by +15.

Now imagine if instead that was a Mind Control versus Will contest...