[RPG] Character generation for the dresden files “case file” adventures

From the writer, Fred Hicks:

biomancy is a tricky, poorly documented part of magic in the source material. But, yes, it’d incorporate transformation magic, and its healing elements likely manifest as accelerated medical care, only occasionally branching into true “regeneration” type stuff at the extremes.

With that in mind, I think that a Biomancer is more akin to a doctor than a cleric, which seems to fit the source material. Keep in mind, that this is an urban fantasy, so having an easy way to heal an extreme consequence (an arm being taken off, for instance) brings to mind the question of why is cancer still a problem, and (without going into too much detail) why are extreme wounds to characters in the source material such a problem.

That said, I'd look towards the character concept and the focus of the player in creating the character to how you might tailor things to make the concept work in your game, and make things satisfying to the player in combat.

In the Dresden Files combat, there are four basic conflict actions: Attack, Maneuver, Block, and Sprint. (ref YS199). Taking sprint out of the equation and reducing the actions to their simplest intent, these actions are meant to either protect the character (thus prolonging the conflict), damage the opposition (thus contributing towards the end of the conflict), or set up opportunities for one or the other.

An application of Biomancy that would fit within these rules is a Block. If someone is in combat, the Biomancer could focus himself on increasing their natural resistance to damage and their natural recovery. The description of the effect would reinforce the use of Biomancy i.e. instead of a kinetic shield stopping the bullet or altering it's path, the bullet impacts the target, but the biomantic energies were able to knit the damaged body before the effects of the shock could even register.

If this is not enough to satisfy the concept and you want to extrapolate the rules and/or use the FATE SRD rules, you can move beyond this. An example of mitigation of consequences is already given- and I think given the statement above about what the intent of what biomancy would be fits their example. So I'd concentrate on stress.

Looking at YS201, we see a definition for stress:

Stress is an abstract representation of the difficulties that threaten to take someone out of a conflict. In a physical fight, stress can be minor cuts, bruises, fatigue, and the like. In a social or mental conflict, it might be loss of willpower, composure, or emotional control...

As attacks inflict stress (which result in consequences), and blocks inhibit stress by increasing defense (resulting in less consequences), the only actual result of removing stress is to extend the conflict. This is the balancing effect to keep in mind. If one side has the ability to remove stress, and extend their staying power in the conflict, and the other one doesn't, you tip the balance in the favor of the side that can remove stress, though the fact that this is a transference in the case of non-rotes does mitigate this concern some.

With that caveat in mind, the first place one could look for an example of what could be done with removing in-combat stress is the FATE SRD. In the FATE SRD (based on Spirit of the Century), there is a skill, Science, which has a stunt Medical Attention [Science].

When using Science as first aid in the middle of a fight, the character must take a full action with a target who’s not trying to do anything else active (i.e., forfeiting his next action). Make a roll against a target of Mediocre; if it succeeds with at least one shift, the subject may remove a checkmark in his one-stress box on his physical stress track. Every two shifts beyond the first improves this effect by one; for example, with five shifts, a character can remove a checkmark in his target’s three-stress box. Success can also be used to “stabilize” someone who has taken a severe or lesser consequence that would appear to be life-threatening (e.g., a Bleeding to Death aspect) – in game terms, this has the effect of limiting the extent to which the aspect can be compelled. A given person can’t be the target of more than one first aid action in an exchange.

Under this approach, one would use an Evocation with the spell's intensity against the target of Mediocre and follow the same guidelines.

Another approach one could use is to look at stress as taken as an intensity of the blow, especially since each dot of stress is an increasing value, and the lower levels of stress won't help with higher intensity wounds. So if your Biomancer wanted to give someone the ability to clear their 4 stress box, they would require an effect with a 4 intensity. Knowing that, you can craft an evocation spell against that intensity.

Note that for balance's sake, and because this isn't explicitly laid out in the rules, the intensity might have to be altered, especially given that a moderate consequence removes 4 stress from the hit, and a mild removes 2, so the equivalency might be a bit different. But I think that these general guidelines would fit the spirit of the rules.

Yes.

The books never explicitly say that the GM should or must tell the players the difficulty, but that's because it takes it for granted. (It really should say, because – as you point out – keeping players in the dark is just so normal for so many GMs.)

There is circumstantial evidence in the text that the GM is supposed to set difficulties "in the open", but they're scattered throughout hundreds of pages and can be subtle. The most obvious, undeniable one is on page 311 of Your Story (emphasis mine):

Difficulty as Plot Device

Sometimes, assigning an unexpectedly high or low difficulty to an action can create an interesting detail for your game. For example, if the PCs are breaking into a small company’s office building, they probably expect most of the locks to be Good difficulty or lower. Finding one that’s Great or Superb difficulty would be unexpected, and this will serve as a flag to indicate that not all is what it seems. […]

Likewise, if the same PCs are infiltrating a Mafia don’s safehouse and all the locks are Average difficulty, it should be an indicator to them that something is wrong.

Note that there is no way that this bit of GMing advice makes sense in a system where difficulties are kept secret. If difficulties are secret, they can't serve as flags that something is up. If difficulties are normally secret and the GM reveals only the "odd" difficulty that's out of place, then the advice straight up doesn't make sense because the players won't have any other difficulties to compare with; and the simple fact that the GM is suddenly telling them difficulties would be the indicator, not the actual difficulty. It would be less artificial to just say what's out of place instead of "indicating" or "flagging" with difficulties. This bit of GMing advice simply wouldn't be in the book if it wasn't simply assumed that difficulties would be played in the open.

So yes, this passage is just a bit of sidebar GMing advice, but it reveals the underlying context of a system that is written with the solid bedrock assumption that players will be told the difficulty of every roll they make.

On top of that, as you point out there are many disadvantages with keeping difficulties secret:

• It slows down play significantly
• It makes in-character strategising (which in FATE is done via Aspects) impossible
• Players have no way of knowing what their characters do know – how their own world, bodies, and expertises work
• It robs the players of narrative power in a ruleset that is designed to be hugely collaborative (and functions poorly when it isn't)
• Playing "guess what the GM is thinking" is almost never fun. This is particularly true in the case of Fate's core mechanic, since uncertainty about target numbers adds no suspense while adding lots of drudgery.

I asked Fred Hicks via Twitter if there is an official rule either way, and he responded:

fredhicks
@sevensideddie I think Fate works best with difficulties in the open; you say jump, they ask how high, and you tell them. :)
_{4:26 PM - 14 Dec 12}

So this is as official as it gets: The game doesn't require anyone to play with difficulties in the open, but the designer thinks people should and designed with that in mind. That's consistent with the books: they don't have a rule for it, but they consistently, subtly, assume that you'll play that way.

In sum, playing with secret difficulties is like voiding the warranty. You can do it, but the game is not guaranteed to perform as designed if you do. As you're discovering (and as I hope your GM can begin to appreciate), this game you're in is suffering somewhat for having its warranty voided and isn't operating at full capacity.