Taking yourself out

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Not at all!  Let's say I decide to cast that 5000 shift spell.  I have Conviction 4, so I'm going to take a 4997 mental stress for casting it.  I can reduce that by as much as 2+4+6+8=20 by taking consequences .. but why bother?  I'll just take myself out and leave the consequences for later.  Now, in my opinion the spellcasting sequence stops right there; the power-gathering step failed.  (If it was important, only 8 shifts were gathered, because the 8th shift was what edged the stress into the non-existent 5th box.)

But under discussion is the case in which we decide the spell goes off regardless.  So I've been taken out, but there's still a 5000 shift spell in the air, with the universe somehow conspiring to gather the remaining 4992 shifts for me.  (Thanks, universe!)  Ok, now I have to control it.  I'm unconcious, so I shouldn't be able to control anything, but we're saying that I can.  So I roll my Discipline 5 and get extraordinarily lucky!  ++++!  That means I control 9 shifts, leaving 4991 uncontrolled.

Now I need to split that between backlash and fallout.  But if I put it into fallout, that would (a) nuke my friends, most likely, and (b) reduce the strength of the spell.  So, what the heck, I'll take it all as backlash.  That's 4991 stress worth of backlash, and I decide again not to take consequences, since I can choose that.  Whoops, looks like I'm taken out.  Again.  Still?  Whatever; my target gets hit by my 5000 shift spell, perfectly focused on him and with no side effects.

How does this sort of silliness make for a good story?  I just don't see it.  My read would be that the hypothetical character tried to cast the 5000 shift spell, passed out (very quickly) from the attempt to gather so much power, with the end result that the power that *was* gathered (ie, the amount that would have created an overflow into a nonexistent stress box) would have then been released as if it was entirely uncontrolled.  Which *could* actually play a role in a story, as the character basically converts some or all of his remaining consequences into an uncontrolled "fallout" spell (in the above example, it would be from 8 to 28 shifts of fallout, depending on the number of consequences taken).  I could see this as a great last-ditch way of escaping from a mook-powered ambush.

That's actually not at all bad, so long as your group can handle the fallout.  That can be done without a takeout even.  Example:

First spell on an empty mental stress track, empty consequences, Superb Conviction, Superb Discipline, skip any modifiers for the sake of simplicity, skip any mental consequence adding stunts/powers for the sake of simplicity.  Summon up 36 shifts of power.  5 shifts are covered by the first stress point, 9 shifts are covered with the 2-4 stress bubbles, 22 are covered by filling every consequence.  That leaves every bit of stress and every consequence filled but is one shift shy of actually taking you out.  Roll Discipline.  Control however many shifts you can manage (possibly zero if the GM compels the newly created consequence aspects).  Let the rest go as fallout.

Note: If you don't allow spreading of mental stress from evo casting out over several boxes, reduce the shifts to 30 and only fill the 4 bubble.

Yeah, the fallout would likely kill you and everyone present but your GM may be less gleeful about killing off characters who do stupid things than I am.  And it's completely within the RAW.  You'd still get more bang for your buck out of a proper death curse though.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Looks like Becq has summed up how I am seeing the issue. Better than I had put it, too. But the bottom line of it is that allowing uncontrolled limitless power shift collection beyond S&C (Stress & Consequences) to create perfect working spells moves the game from the Dresden Files and into the realm of Dragonball Z.

<prayer>Dear God, I'd appreciate it if you'd keep my players from reading this comment and creating Kamehameha spells.  They're just the kind of wiseasses that would.</prayer>

[sinker]

How does this sort of silliness make for a good story?

It doesn't. This is the part where you, the discerning GM say "You are obviously being ridiculous, and beyond the novelty this will not be fun for anyone. You can't do that." but just because abuse is potentially possible does not mean that we should scrap something that could make the game completely awesome. Consider the following scenario.

The wizard throws his last bit of juice at the villain and the villain is thrown. He stands there, broken and bleeding waiting for the end to come, but it doesn't. Finally he stands, laughing. "You've got nothing left do you?" He says. He starts limping away as he laughs, and the player goes "Can I dredge up my last ounce of strength and throw something at him?" You decide that it's ok this time and the wizard throws one last blast, knocking the villain off his feet to land nearby. The wizard sees the last of his enemy's life drain from his face as he begins to drift off. He hears footsteps and a deep unfamiliar voice says "Well, look at what we have here." Then blackness.

This is the one thing that I love about pen and paper role-playing games. In a video game or any other sort of interactive media you must have the rules set, because there's no way for it to adapt as you come up with interesting ways to work them. However with pen and paper RPGs there's another human being on the other end. One who can make decisions based on what is fun or exciting. One who can create scenarios like I outlined and yet still not allow the abuse of that particular "rule" if you will. I don't intend to be inflammatory, however it seems like if any GM is allowing such abuses (or sees them as a real threat to their game) then they aren't doing their job. One is there to be that balancing factor, to decide what will be great and what will not. A good GM makes decisions based on what's best for the table, not what the rules state and not even what you have said in the past.

[UmbraLux]

Not at all!  Let's say I decide to cast that 5000 shift spell.  <snip>  My read would be that the hypothetical character tried to cast the 5000 shift spell, passed out (very quickly) from the attempt to gather so much power, with the end result that the power that *was* gathered (ie, the amount that would have created an overflow into a nonexistent stress box) would have then been released as if it was entirely uncontrolled.

I don't think our thought processes are that far off.  My position is simply that the caster would never get to 5000 shifts of power.  He passes out (and ceases to draw power) on the first shift he can't "pay for". 

[wyvern]

...[example snipped]...

This reads to me like a sponsor debt or temporary access to power mechanic - the PC is trading off an immediate compel for, I'd rule, a standard two shifts of effect - i.e. a spell at power equal to conviction plus one - which would have exactly the same dramatic effect you were going for.  (That sort of situation is one of the reasons Harry carries a gun, though.)

[sinker]

Yep, there are probably half a dozen different ways one could handle that, and that way seems decent too.

[Silverblaze]

Given the discussion so far, how do we differenciate a death curse from an uber self sacrificing spell?

(Aside from the death thing...)

How do you stat a death curse?

[sinker]

It's simply a thaumaturgy spell with all of the prep taken care of, and the time constraints removed because the wizard doesn't need to worry about backlash.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

It's simply a thaumaturgy spell with all of the prep taken care of, and the time constraints removed because the wizard doesn't need to worry about backlash.

So, weaker than allowing them to cast spells they can't pay for then.  Yeah, bang up idea.

[Sanctaphrax]

YS page 282 contains Death Curse rules.

[sinker]

So, weaker than allowing them to cast spells they can't pay for then.  Yeah, bang up idea.

Weaker than? The death curse literally has no shift limit. Since thaumaturgy is only limited by prep and time, and all of the prep is taken care of and it can be cast all at once, there is nothing limiting the death curse whatsoever.

And really what I don't get is why people can't say no. If a player says "Hey, can I cast a spell at 5000 shifts" you'd probably say "What? Why? No, nevermind why, just no." So why would you say yes just because of this change?

[Watson]

Weaker than? The death curse literally has no shift limit.

I would say that a death curse do have a limit, at least that is hoe I interpret the rules on page YS282. The consequences that you have can be tagged (seems a bit strange, but ok) and you can inflict more if you choose (why not, the wizard is going to die anyway). If there is no limit, each wizard could set of an equivalent effect of a nuclear bomb when they die...

The Wizard’s Death CurseThe wizard’s death curse is actually very
easy to model. It’s a ritual, but with all of the
preparation ready to go. The components
of preparation are the circumstances of the
wizard’s death—all of the consequences he
has can be tagged, and he can inflict more
upon himself if he’s got the space, since he’s
not going to be around afterward.

[UmbraLux]

Weaker than? The death curse literally has no shift limit.

Yes it does, shifts still have to be paid for.  A death curse simply gives you a free tag on all of your consequences and allows you to inflict multiple (instead of the one you normally get) consequences on yourself at once if you have the space.  "...all of the consequences he has can be tagged, and he can inflict more on himself..."

The one area which is significantly different than normal is in control.  It states fallout and backlash aren't a concern...so the wizard will pretty much automatically control whatever amount of power he was able to summon.  That amount is limited by available tags, fate, stress, and consequences...which probably put most death curses in the 20-30 shift range.

[Silverblaze]

So there really is no difference between letting a player take all of his consequences and stresses to make a large attack...they just don't die. (They also don't get free tags).

I suppose the one difference is that the curse can be thaumaturgy rather than evocation. (unless the caster has sponsored magic, in which case it virtually is no different. 

So either death curses are only a little better than blowing it all on one spell or blowing it all on one spell should be discouraged.  It makes death curses look less impressive to me.

[computerking]

So there really is no difference between letting a player take all of his consequences and stresses to make a large attack...they just don't die. (They also don't get free tags).

I suppose the one difference is that the curse can be thaumaturgy rather than evocation. (unless the caster has sponsored magic, in which case it virtually is no different. 

So either death curses are only a little better than blowing it all on one spell or blowing it all on one spell should be discouraged.  It makes death curses look less impressive to me.

I think the difference goes to Flexibility when it comes to Death Curses: Being Thaumaturgy, you can do anything with it. With Evocation you can do some things, but nowhere near Thaum's laundry list. You can curse them and their future family line with boils, for example (2-3 complexity for a minor affliction, the rest to the time chart), or turn them into a eunuch, for something dramatic. But with Evocation you can only do some variation of "I Blow You up". Enemy Dead, you dead, ho-hum. Thaumaturgy lets you make them suffer.
And sometimes, that's worth dying for.