The Dresden Files > DFRPG

The First Law of Magic In-Play: Semi-Official Advice

<< < (5/13) > >>

Wyrdrune:
on the other side, when I am GMing I do not assign all NPCs with all consequences. when our thief-character sneaks into a museum and tries to silently overcome nameless_guard01 and puts him to sleep, the guard may possibly have only 3 stress and the mild consequence to keep it cineastic (people in movies whack guards ko all the time) and fast if the fight is not really important to the story.

there is the possibility in my game, that the gang - when it is just meant as an annoyance to the players - that they may only have a mild and a medium consequence.

Sanctaphrax:
What Wyrdrune said. A weapon 2 pistol has a decent chance of killing someone, unless that someone is important enough to get consequences.

I generally think of consequences as a form of plot armour. Basically, they're the reason that Batman doesn't just get shot and killed as soon as a mook points a gun at him.

mstorer3772:

--- Quote from: Wyrdrune on September 06, 2011, 07:46:44 AM ---there is the possibility in my game, that the gang - when it is just meant as an annoyance to the players - that they may only have a mild and a medium consequence.

--- End quote ---

Generic mooks shouldn't get any consequences at all.  And I Quote:


--- Quote from: YS pg 337 ---One reason almost all nameless and
supporting NPCs qualify as minor opposition
is because they do not fight to the end—they
fight until their stress tracks get bypassed and
then either concede or are taken out.

--- End quote ---

Emphasis added.

That section goes on to say that even main baddies might not go all the way to "Extreme Consequences" to further their ends.  They'll allow themselves to be taken out if they know the PCs won't kill them outright.  Failing that, they'll make a Concession: fell into a "nobody could survive that" situation, only to appear a few sessions later with some pretty new scars, and a Hunger For Revenge.

arthurfallz:
I agree that the system says you don't kill someone unless you intend to. I think, however, there is something missing from that equation. When a character is going to do something, the GM gives feedback on the action, including mentioning his/her interpretation of the outcome of that action. In the most technical of interactions, this is the GM making sure he understands the outcome.

An example;
Harry is lining up to hit a goon who is pumping lead into the air out of a semi-automatic... with his car. He doesn't want to use a spell, and he's behind the wheel, so it just makes sense. Harry's player (that Jim guy?) tells the GM "Harry spins the wheel and bears down on the guy, ducking low to avoid the bullet as he runs him down." The GM nods, and thinks quick. "All right, the Blue Beetle will hit the goon and crush him, maybe killing him." If that isn't what "Jim" intends, he needs to clarify. He could say "I think he would be clipped, spun into the trash and knocked out," and that's fine. Because what Jim intends here is that Harry gets away from the goon, and that's the way he wants Harry's story to go. If he wanted Jim to do the same with magic, casting a Fuego spell at the goon, again, the GM might blink and say "So, he'll be a smoking pair of boots?". If Jim intends Harry to incinerate the goon, he'll say so. But it's not unfair, as a GM, to go to the players for clarification, and to remind the player that, to him or her, the action sounds homicidal.

The game isn't about trapping people into actions and outcomes. The story might be, but the player gets to let his or her character get lead into those events. Where this gets tricky is, indeed, with Compels. And then you have to look at your Aspects. If a player has chosen to take homicidal Aspects, is it wrong for the GM to use them? How is the character really the character is "I Eat Babies For Mana" doesn't get compelled when the lust for power rises? Why did the player make that character anyways if they complain when the Laws of that Universe set them up for the fall?

I don't see the game as a GM vs. Player interaction. I see it as a GM + Player collaboration. And part of that collaboration is that the GM needs to remind the player that reckless, homicidal abandon is... homicidal. Part of that is for the GM to compel those reckless, misanthropic Aspects the Player put on their sheet.

I support the original post. Killing with magic is killing with magic. Having made serious errors in life, they haunt you. Forever.

DHT:
On the other hand, I see the game as a matter of choices and consequences.  This means that a truly accidental killing by magic isn't a violation, since that isn't a choice.  The player may want to change an aspect, but that's up to the player.

It also means that the decision to use excessive and potentially lethal force against a human is a choice, and can have consequences.  Harry is well aware that he has very powerful magic, and worries about what might happen when he uses it.  I don't want the wizards in my campaign throwing full-power spells around casually.

This doesn't mean that a player gets blindsided by a First Law violation.  The player should always get warning of some sort.  In our first session, one wizard hit a thug with a full-power spell, and the thug was slammed against the wall and collapsed to the floor, unconscious and bleeding.  There's no Law against injuring somebody with a spell, but that's a suggestion that excessive magical force might kill.  Nor would I allow a violation without pointing out, before the roll, that that magic might kill somebody.

I'm less concerned with the exact game mechanics here.  By a strict interpretation of the rules, a character could nuke an NPC and declare that the NPC got a bad concussion, or possibly banged up by bouncing around in that refrigerator.  I don't think that makes a good game, though.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page