So the first law can't be broken unless you WANT to break it, right?

[Tedronai]

The key to Compels is to only use them when it makes the story MORE INTERESTING.  For everyone involved, preferably, but particularly for those directly involved.
And removing a character from player control is almost never more interesting for that player than the alternative.

[Steppenwolf]

The key to Compels is to only use them when it makes the story MORE INTERESTING.  For everyone involved, preferably, but particularly for those directly involved.
And removing a character from player control is almost never more interesting for that player than the alternative.

Moreover Compels can dictate the general type of action, not the action itself.

You could compel of course that NPC is not worth of sparing but you cannot say the PC uses his magical wrath. The PC can simply crush the NPC's skull with his feet or strangle him to death.

[Steppenwolf]

Sorry, double post....

However I just add an advice to the subject of the thread:
"Discuss the matter in the group and decide"
If the group prefer a sort of G.I. Joe game in which civilian cannot be victims, it's fine.

If the group prefer a more consistent approach, it's fine too.

This is something which the group must agree about in advance.

[Tallyrand]

The key to Compels is to only use them when it makes the story MORE INTERESTING.  For everyone involved, preferably, but particularly for those directly involved.
And removing a character from player control is almost never more interesting for that player than the alternative.

The difficulty in that lies in the fact that interesting stories come out of interesting conflict, and interesting conflict comes out of risk.  If there is no possibility of loss of life or free will any conflict, then eventually everything becomes pale.  Harry's story and his temptation toward power are only interesting because he may eventually lose out to that temptation, in your system that wouldn't be a possibility.

[UmbraLux]

Not entirely...compels could certainly lead to a situation where the wizard might choose to kill with magic.  Though I wouldn't normally* make it a choice between 'spending a fate point to resist' or 'gain lawbreaker status'.  I'd prefer a subtler chain of compels where the choice might end up being 'let the bad guy get away' or 'take out a human to get to the bad guy'.

*One potential exception is sponsored magic from a sponsor with negative goals.  Hellfire for example - if you take it and use it consistently, sooner or later it will compel you towards a position to kill.  That meets one of the sponsor's goals after all...potentially more than one.

[DFJunkie]

Also, compels are supposed to be negotiated, not imposed.  If the GM says "you want him dead, you know you want him dead, if you go through with it you will fry him with your magic, not knock him out" or something similar the PC could negotiate it to "realizing that my emotions are running out of control I intentionally miss with my blast of fire, knowing that had I not, I would have burned him to a crisp."

If a GM just waits for a PC to run out of fate points then compels them to become an NPC with no alternatives that GM is horrible. 

[bitterpill]

I think Kemmlerite Necromancy and Hellfire are really NPC powers there is no way to remain a PC when using powers that are naturally corrupting and also fatal the wardens find out, you could play such a character but a GM would be right to compel you to become a monster because that is one of the main aims of the sponsor.

[Tallyrand]

If a GM just waits for a PC to run out of fate points then compels them to become an NPC with no alternatives that GM is horrible. 

I don't disagree with that, which is why I advocate a system for law breaking that has nothing to do with compels.  Otherwise, even with a good GM, it wouldn't necessarily be a matter of waiting till the PC runs out, but rather having the appropriate dramatic moment come up when the player happened to be out.  Either way it's an unacceptable situation, but I feel that there being no risk associated with unrestrained combat magic to be unacceptable as well.

[DFJunkie]

but I feel that there being no risk associated with unrestrained combat magic to be unacceptable as well.

Meh, I don't see why there should be risks for magic over and above, for instance, Supernatural Might or a bigass machine gun.  The only reason that the topic keeps coming up is because First Law violations are such a nifty way of reining in Evocation, which can easily become game-wreckingly overpowered. 

IMO the compel system already exists in the RAW to so that, in conjunction with a Wizard's high concept, a GM can keep them from being too irresponsible with their spells.  One of the best parts of FATE systems, to me, is the cooperative nature of the game.  By engaging your player in negotiating compels instead of enforcing a hard and fast rule you can make sure that your players understand how the Laws complicate their character's lives.  If there is a hard and fast rule it encourages players to work around it, and find ways to exploit it.  Compels encourage the player to engage with the game as a story, rather than a mechanical system.

[Tedronai]

I don't disagree with that, which is why I advocate a system for law breaking that has nothing to do with compels.  Otherwise, even with a good GM, it wouldn't necessarily be a matter of waiting till the PC runs out, but rather having the appropriate dramatic moment come up when the player happened to be out.  Either way it's an unacceptable situation, but I feel that there being no risk associated with unrestrained combat magic to be unacceptable as well.

Except...

A weapon:8 evocation taking the form of a giant ball of fire comes flying at you when you're already scraped, bruised, and running on your last legs.
You manage to dodge the discipline roll down to a single shift, meaning you're about to take 9 stress.
Your minor, moderate, and severe consequences are already occupied, and have only 2 of your 4 physical stress boxes remaining.
You take the extreme consquence 'horrible burns', change one of your aspects to 'grotesque appearance', take one stress, and CONCEDE.  You'll survive, though, assuming you get medical attention in a reasonable amount of time, and no one takes the opportunity to just up and slit your throat.

[sinker]

The difficulty in that lies in the fact that interesting stories come out of interesting conflict, and interesting conflict comes out of risk.  If there is no possibility of loss of life or free will any conflict, then eventually everything becomes pale.  Harry's story and his temptation toward power are only interesting because he may eventually lose out to that temptation, in your system that wouldn't be a possibility.

A good player takes that risk on for themselves. A while ago I was playing a character that was all about grey mind magic (mostly because she was apprenticed to a circle neuromancer). She honestly wanted to help others and honestly thought she could do it with mind magic. Then a warlock in the area started working with outsiders and wound up hurting some of the people that she loved. I spent a couple of turns preparing, then reached out and crushed his mind (taking the lawbreaker power). It was a great story, and since I was phasing the character out it allowed me a great villain with connections to the group when I was GMing.

[Tallyrand]

Except...

A weapon:8 evocation taking the form of a giant ball of fire comes flying at you when you're already scraped, bruised, and running on your last legs.
You manage to dodge the discipline roll down to a single shift, meaning you're about to take 9 stress.
Your minor, moderate, and severe consequences are already occupied, and have only 2 of your 4 physical stress boxes remaining.
You take the extreme consquence 'horrible burns', change one of your aspects to 'grotesque appearance', take one stress, and CONCEDE.  You'll survive, though, assuming you get medical attention in a reasonable amount of time, and no one takes the opportunity to just up and slit your throat.

Three difficulties with that though.

1) Nit picky I know, but I would never have an opponent to the players take an Extreme Consequence, that's hero territory.

2) I guess I may not have mentioned this earlier but I would allow a 2-4 over the stress track window before I enforced the 'nope, he's just dead' rule.

3) We're talking about Taken Out mechanics, not Concession mechanics.  No one here never said that you can't survive a Weapon: 8 or Weapon: 8000 attack if some how you manage not to be taken out by it.

[Tedronai]

Any 'Taken Out' result in a situation that was not capable of filling the stress track and all remaining consequences IS a Concession.
2-4 over the stress track is taking a moderate or severe consequence, not getting taken out, let alone necessarily killed.

That 'Concession' of the horrible burns and disfigurement? It'd also be a reasonable 'Taken Out' result, had the attack forced that.

[luminos]

Meh, I don't see why there should be risks for magic over and above, for instance, Supernatural Might or a bigass machine gun.  The only reason that the topic keeps coming up is because First Law violations are such a nifty way of reining in Evocation, which can easily become game-wreckingly overpowered. 

But its not just for reining in Evocation from being to powerful for the game, its for making the game work on the same assumptions as the books.  It is a fact that in the books, lethal force with magic is objectively worse than doing the same thing with a machine gun.  Hurling around lethal force with magic all the time in the game and not treating it as any more serious than doing the same with a gun is going outside of the Dresdenverse.  Nothing wrong with it, per se, but if you told me we were going to be playing a game of the Dresden Files, it would break my expectations for Lawbreaker to be ignored just because its inconvenient.

[Tedronai]

It is a fact that in the books, lethal force with magic is objectively worse than doing the same thing with a machine gun.  Hurling around lethal force with magic all the time in the game and not treating it as any more serious than doing the same with a gun is going outside of the Dresdenverse.

That's because the potential Bad Things (tm) made possible by throwing around potentially lethal magics are objectively worse than doing the same thing with a machine gun, not because they're more likely, which is what I believe DFJunkie was referring to.