The Dresden Files > DFRPG

Law Talk

<< < (8/37) > >>

Tedronai:
I suppose my take on that would depend on what you mean by 'consistently' and 'masses of power', respectively.
I'm not really sure that there is a viable definitive line that one can cross on those measures, either, but the issue is quite definitely subject to the gaming group's assessment of plausibility and their tolerance of that being stretched.  But that is where (and by whom) the decision must be made.  There is no universal, game-and-group-spanning metric for determining which spell (or other attack) is capable of disabling an opponent non-lethally (or even which one is capable of doing so LETHALLY), and which is not.
The group as a whole must come to some sort of agreement (or at least compromise) on these issues.  This is not the place for GM fiat.

Tarion:

--- Quote from: Sanctaphrax on February 12, 2013, 01:37:46 AM ---No it isn't.

--- End quote ---
Could you elaborate on this?

Because I was very careful to avoid saying something like "three times that deadly", or "three times that force".  But in terms of stress, it really does have three times the stopping power (in the sense of being able to "incapacitate the target where it stands"), which implies to me that it's going to convey a decent amount of force.
--- Quote from: Deadmanwalking on February 12, 2013, 04:23:44 AM ---Sleep spells are almost violations of the Fourth Law, not the First.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, I realise I didn't specifically state that, but I'm talking in terms of all of the Laws, not just the first.
--- Quote ---And an electricity-as-tazer spell or spirit-based blood choke should be able to take someone out without killing 'em pretty well.
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure about the blood choke, but tasers have quite a death toll.  They're not non-lethal, they're just less-lethal. 
--- Quote ---But at heart, no, I don't think making people worry about this is unfair, but I'd suggest you're doing it the wrong way, because you're violating the rules to achieve that effect.
--- End quote ---
Which rule?  Because the rules are quite clear that it needs to be within the limits of reason.  And as the guy who's most familiar with setting and the rules, what I say is essentially going to serve as my group's limits of reason.  That's why I'm concerned about being unfair - I don't want my reading of the setting to be unnecessarily punitive, when it's essentially going to be taken as canon.
--- Quote ---Instead, I suggest Compels on their High Concept. If they accept, using magic on those poor mortals is too dangerous and they either don't do it or risk Lawbreaker, if they refuse the Compel, they find a non-lethal spell. Do this every time it comes up and everyone has to be pretty careful, but the rules remain unchanged and there's no unfairness. You can do the same thing on a cop shooting people or other such situations, too.
--- End quote ---
I do like this take on it, and it was probably a large part of how I was going to go about it in the first place. 

Theonlyspiral:
In terms of the specifics: I would say it all comes down to the narrative of the spell. If someone is hit head on by a 10 shift Fireball, I do have trouble seeing them taken out but alive if they are a regular person. On the other hand if they use a Gravity Hammer to force G-Forces and make them pass out? Or hit them with a wave of icy cold water? I could buy that.

In general your stance on the laws should mirror what the table wants: If they want a game where magic is dangerous and full of pitfalls, where moral quagmires are common, then a stricter reading of the laws is called for. If they just want to have a fun action game, then it hurts noone to let them cut loose.

Sanctaphrax:

--- Quote from: Tarion on February 12, 2013, 01:08:52 PM ---Could you elaborate on this?

Because I was very careful to avoid saying something like "three times that deadly", or "three times that force".  But in terms of stress, it really does have three times the stopping power (in the sense of being able to "incapacitate the target where it stands"), which implies to me that it's going to convey a decent amount of force.Yeah, I realise I didn't specifically state that, but I'm talking in terms of all of the Laws, not just the first.
--- End quote ---

Stress is not really a direct representation of in-game reality. A raging (D&D-style) barbarian hitting you with a big axe could be anywhere from weapon 3 to weapon 7 depending on how the GM decides to stat the barbarian up. Exact same barbarian, exact same in-story situation, totally different weapon rating.

Plus, even when a stress bonus does correspond to an in-game concept it's not necessarily one that would logically make an attack more lethal. The classic example is a damage stunt representing exceptional skill. More skilled fighters are less likely, not more likely, to accidentally kill someone.

And multiplication doesn't work very well with stress. Three 4-stress hits are not equal to one 12-stress hit.

Theonlyspiral:
So here's another question for everyone: The Formor. Now the Formor use augmented servitors, modified by magic and (likely) alchemy to become less like Human Beings, and more like the Formor themselves. In Ghost Story (click to show/hide) When Molly is attacked and Harry roasts some of them neither seems very concerned. Would you slap lawbreaker on someone who hit a Formor servitor with a gout of fire? Or would they be in the clear?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page