A concession has to pass muster with the group before it is accepted—the conditions of the loss still have to represent a clear and decisive disadvantage for your character. If the group (note that your opponent is part of the group for this!) feels like your character is getting off easy, you’ll need to rework the concession until it’s acceptable.Given that weapon 6 is several steps more powerful than a hand grenade, I don't think that anyone could argue that the concession result is unreasonable, and I think it would be hard to argue that the victims are "getting off easy". It meets with all of the specific considerations the rules suggest on the same page, which generally suggest minimum long-term consequences rather than maximum. And as far as inflicting Lawbreakers on the attacker, the GM clearly stated to the player that he was at risk of breaking the Laws, and gave the player ample opportunity to revise the action. If I were the GM, I *might* even be more lenient that this any give the player one *more* chance to revise their action after previewing the result, since the result is likely going to be a loss of the character.
So is this a fair use of the concession rules to enforce the potential lethality of magic? Or mundane attacks, for that matter?
Problem 3) concessions are NEGOTIATED, and can be refused by the would-be victor
If the damage exceeds the character’s stress track, or occupied boxes “push” the stress off the right side of the stress track, the character is taken out, meaning the character has decisively lost the conflict. His fate is in the hands of the opponent, who may decide how the character loses. The outcome must remain within the realm of reason
I dislike this.
Problems of this sort can and should be dealt with at character creation.
If you don't like 8 shift evocations, tell your players that you aren't comfortable with them and have them make a non-Blast-O-Matic character.
Reasonable outcomes for a large intense fireball easily being along the lines of horrible, disfiguring burns as an extreme consequence
Reasonable outcomes for a large intense fireball easily being along the lines of horrible, disfiguring burns as an extreme consequence
I don't think every single situation can be discussed before hand, and the Storyteller is the arbiter of reason.
In any case, if anyone feels like in their game the GM has to "get" the players and make them get Lawbreaker stunts, then something is really fracked with the group dynamic in that game. That's how GMs in parodies of RPG groups play (like DM of the Rings).* Frankly, if I found myself in a game like that, I'd quit.
The game actually tends to indicate the group as a whole is the arbiter of reason...at least as far as conventions like lethal force and the like go.
Horrible burns are a reasonable outcome, horrible burns that absolutely cannot lead to death are not.
Well ok yeah, but it's not just the one player.
Concerning the OP's scenario: Isn't there some rule about conceding before the dice are rolled?
I have two issues with this by RAW. If they are random mooks, then it's likely that they don't have the commitment to the conflict necessary to have consequences. In that case a 13 would mandate a taken out result and the player would be well within his rights to demand his "taken out" result.
a weapon:6 sleep spell, for instance
or a weapon:6 heat-stroke spell
Ok, I've noticed this argument before and it's beginning to drive me nuts. Both of those examples could EASILY kill people and the more popular one, the 'Sleep' spell is actually a canon example of a seemingly innocuous spell that will be lethal if taken to extremes in the example of Agatha Hagglethorne. I challenge anyone to describe to be a spell that, if take to the equivalent force of a Weapon: 4 attack could not possibly be lethal.
I challenge anyone to describe to be a spell that, if take to the equivalent force of a Weapon: 4 attack could not possibly be lethal.
Overkill, with extreme consequences can also bring up the never fun revenge situation.
Fyi
"Unlike heat cramps and heat exhaustion, two other forms of hyperthermia that are less severe, heat stroke is a true medical emergency that can be fatal if not properly and promptly treated." - MedicineNet.com
So that really isn't an option.....
"Unlike heat cramps and heat exhaustion, two other forms of hyperthermia that are less severe, heat stroke is a true medical emergency that can be fatal if not properly and promptly treated." - MedicineNet.com
Actually agree with you those sites take everything too seriously.
However, the only difference between heat exhaustion and heat stroke is severity, and if it's a weapon 4+, well that probably goes past the lmit of both of them.
Edit: But we are seriously getting off subject ;D
Agatha Hagglethorne is hardly a good example to go by here for a sleep spell. She was TRYING to kill those babies (and she was a ghost). For what it is worth, most people can't use an evocation to do a sleep spell, imho (you'd need thaumaturgy at the speed of evocation to do it). Heatstroke seems reasonable.
I think you are being a bit silly here, as you seem to be demanding that the only way players can knock someone out is by using...what...weapon 1 attacks? Oh, no, that's like stabbing someone with a dinner knife, I think. Weapon 0? Well, people can be beaten to death. I think that's a bit ridiculous. If a spell is specifically designed to be non-lethal, then it should be treated as such.
And before you say "rubber bullets" I'll say that were I going to state out every weapon in the game I would say rubber bullets subtract 1 from a weapons power.
Harry's force ring. Check YS 280, the ring is stated to be Weapon:4 and if you recall Harry uses it to take out an uzi armed thug in the park at the beginning of Summer Knight. As he's doing so his internal monologue is going on about hitting the guy a glancing blow, so he's only knocked out and not killed, which is the player's way of Taking Out the gunman without killing him.
That's just a semantic quibble. People are really meaning Heat Exhaustion here.
Not particularly off subject. I think insisting that a "weapon 4" attack must be lethal force is rather silly.
Let's say we perfect a chemical method to knock people out safely (theoretically possible given how the systems of the body work regarding wakefulness) without risk of overdose. You might well model this as a weapon 5 or even 10 attack to ensure the person gets knocked out, but that doesn't mean it has to be lethal -- heck, it doesn't even mean any kind of damage is being done beyond an afternoon nap. Just because SOME weapon 4 attacks are lethal force doesn't mean all are. A high weapon rating can easily be about how effective the attack is by design and this doesn't correlate to lethality if the attack is designed to be non-lethal.
I think the real matter about weapons is the implicit assumption that an attack with the weapon is aimed to the target.
An attack can also be directed to something on the scene to incapacitate the target without killing him. You spray bullets in the legs, you throw a grenade at a few distance so some shrapnel and forcewave hit the targets, you fire your rocket to disperse the crowd, etc.
Actually, I've been on record (although not on this thread) saying that I feel anything under Weapon: 3 is reasonable for a guaranteed non-lethal attack. Yeah Weapon: 1 is a Knife, but it's also a sap, Weapon: 2 can represent a baseball bat or a Tazer, when you get to Weapon: 3 though you simply run out of Non-Lethal options, you're in giant pistol or assault rifle territory. And before you say "rubber bullets" I'll say that were I going to state out every weapon in the game I would say rubber bullets subtract 1 from a weapons power.
Ok this is one of the things that bothers me the most about this whole discussion. FATE is supposed to be an abstract system for a group to create an interesting story. It is not D20 or Gurps. Weapon values do not represent specific inflexible results that always do the same thing. By RAW stress does not at all equate to bodily harm. I can seriously wound someone with a weapon:0 attack, and I can hit them with a weapon:6 attack and actually not do ANY lasting harm. In addition I could do lasting harm in a physical conflict (I.E. a consequence) that is not representative of physical damage like a consequence of "Exhausted" or "Blinded" or even a more abstract consequence of "Quaking" or "Coward" and I could do all of this with an assault rifle, merely by stating that I did not shoot them directly, but with the intent to kick up grit into their eyes, to force them to dodge, or to scare the crap out of them. Yes these aren't the kind of actions that are likely in real life, however they are the kind of things that highly skilled heroes in every novel will do. That's the point of FATE and stating that all weapon:4 attacks are exactly like each other is simply ludicrous in the face of that.
Ok, I've noticed this argument before and it's beginning to drive me nuts. Both of those examples could EASILY kill people and the more popular one, the 'Sleep' spell is actually a canon example of a seemingly innocuous spell that will be lethal if taken to extremes in the example of Agatha Hagglethorne. I challenge anyone to describe to be a spell that, if take to the equivalent force of a Weapon: 4 attack could not possibly be lethal.
Wow, please god promise me that you will NEVER work crowd control for the army. Ok, people can die and die quickly from gunshots to the leg, there is no 'safe but affected' distance from a shrapnel propelling grenade and firing a rocket into a crowd in any circumstances is a great way of killing a bunch of people in a crowd.
I think "could not possibly be lethal" is a bit too strong a challenge, since even a toothpick could "possibly be lethal". But I think you're asking the reverse: describe a spell that "could consistently be non-lethal".
Lightsaber Strike
Fire Evocation:
Weapon:6 Offensive Attack
Fluff: Automatically cauterizes wounds as it cuts. This could easily kill, but could just as reasonably chop off limbs and leave the victim alive.
Vertigo Wave
Earth Evocation:
Weapon: 4 Offensive Zone Attack
Fluff: Creates minor fluctuations in gravity within a zone, which play havoc with the target's sense of balance. Common consequences are "mild nausea" (minor), "motion sickness" (moderate), or "long-term balance issues" (severe)
Bacchanalia
Summer Evocation
Weapon: 5 Offensive Zone Attack
Fluff: Recreates the physical symptoms of inebriation in the target. Common consequences are "euphoria" (minor), "lethargy" (moderate), "stupor" or "blackouts" (severe)
we never see anyone 'nicked' in a light saber battle and it seems to me that that is for a reason.
And people cannot die from a bullet in the chest if it hits non-vital parts.
However Sinker told a great truth.
We are not talking about RL or a RL-simulation. We are talking about FATE system, so the general way to handle lethal weapons should be discussed by the whole group in advance.
If you want to put lethal consequences for weapons it's your free choice.
For me, a zone-wide spell can be non lethal, but I would'nt allow lethal and non-lethal effects in the same zone.
An attack the created the effects of drunkenness would be an attack against the Mental or perhaps Social track. Otherwise could also be represented by Maneuvers more easily than as an attack.
It's also difficult to justify a direct hit from a tractor-trailer rig travelling at highway speeds as inflicting anything short of severe consequences.
That's why you twist your ankle in your (otherwise successful) attempt to move out of the way as a minor consequence.
Alchol is a poison and the majority of its effects are physical so it is perfectly reasonable to call an attack the created the effects of drunkenness a physical one.
Drugging someone is MUCH better represented in this game by Maneuvers than by Attacks.
Vertigo Wave is, IMO, better represented by Maneuvers and attacks. An attack the created the effects of drunkenness would be an attack against the Mental or perhaps Social track. Otherwise could also be represented by Maneuvers more easily than as an attack.
In so far as the 'Light Saber' attack it's not well represented by DFRPG at all, I'd place that as more of a weakness of the system than a weakness of my argument. Really the only thing you can do with a Light Saber is either kill or inflict Severe or Extreme consequences, we never see anyone 'nicked' in a light saber battle and it seems to me that that is for a reason.
I'm not sure at all what your last sentence means. I've not argued against zone wide attacks at all (in fact when this conversation came up in my group I suggested to one of our high conviction wizards that if he didn't want to feel he was wasting his potential power he could simply do a Weapon: 2 attack over a zone rather than his normal Weapon: 5 attack), and I'm not sure what you mean by combining Lethal and Non-Lethal zone effects.
At no point have I said it's impossible to hit someone with a Weapon: 3 or more attack without killing them, only that IMO it's impossible to do so and guarantee you won't kill someone.
...
I agree completely that any decision made about a Dresden files game that it's spelled out completely in the book should be discussed with your play group, I have not in anyway suggested otherwise. I'm simply making the argument for what I believe the designers intended.
Sorry I was interrupted while I was finishing the sentences.
I wanted to say that if you use a zone wide spell I will need a very reasonable explaination to allow you killing some people and letting live some other ones in the same zone.
No it isn't. You absolutely cannot knock someone out with a maneuver. General anesthesia is impossible that way. The same is true of putting someone to sleep. Maneuvers are good at representing something that isn't going to last very long at all. They are horrible at representing anything that is making someone get Taken Out.
The ridiculousness of your stance regarding weapon ratings is that you'd make it actually pretty impossible to put someone to sleep with a spell. Instead you'd require they use a half dozen or more spells to get the job done. That's silly.
As Sinker said, weapon ratings ARE abstract. They give some guidelines in the rules for common weapon types, but fundamentally the weapon rating is about HOW EFFECTIVE the weapon is. This effectiveness might be regarding lethal means (a sword or gun), or it could be something completely non-lethal (like an idealized taser, sleep spell, anesthetic or the like). A high rating just means that if the attack hit, then it packs a good punch of WHATEVER. That might be super sharp death; it could be lovely sleepy dreams; or any of an infinite number of other things. This idea that weapons of a particular rating must be lethal is something you are making up which not only is not backed by the rules but also doesn't make sense for the reasons I've described.
The Second Law isn't the sort of thing you can break accidentally, unlike the first.
You've stated that before in this thread, but I agree. Maneuvers are a perfectly decent way to represent it, but not necessarily "better". Maneuvers generally inflict short term effects, while attacks inflict longer lasting consequences which can't be removed by a counter-maneuver. The intent of the attack is not to merely put the enemy "off balance" so we can hit them with another attack - it's to make them unable to physically function (i.e. to be Taken Out).
Vader arguably got "nicked" on his side during ROTJ (let me do a little Googling... http://www.thedentedhelmet.com/f22/vaders-armor-vs-lukes-lightsaber-37522/ (http://www.thedentedhelmet.com/f22/vaders-armor-vs-lukes-lightsaber-37522/)). And just because we don't see it doesn't mean that a light saber couldn't "nick" someone. Why do you think the Light Saber attack isn't well represented by the system? What about my description doesn't fit the system? How is it different from, say, a Warden Sword or a Sword of the Cross?
Guess one way you can resolve this is to see how much higher the attack/discipline roll was over the controll and defense rolls. The greater difference the greater chance you can controll what happens. Imo if you are taking backlash with a weapon 4+, the likelihood that you are not doing horrible things to them that can have unfavorable results is much more minute likely.
YS 233: Fist paragraph after What Happens When You Break The Laws would be unnecessary if it was impossible to do so accidentally.
YS 236: The section after In your game makes no sense whatsoever if unintentionally killing is impossible.
YS 237: In the first paragraph after In your game
I've said this before, and I guess I'll say it again, though I'm not sure what's unclear about the rules concerning this: A *character* can accidentally kill another. A *player* cannot. So, when you as a player get a "taken out" result you can decide that your *character* accidentally (if they weren't meaning to) killed another if this is a reasonable outcome based on what happened. And if your character does something that would reasonably end with someone's death and you wish for them not to, you need to convince the rest of the table that your result is reasonable.
This means that your character can shoot someone several times and they might live. This is possible, and could be reasonable. It isn't reasonable if the player simply wants their character to avoid being a murderer (they probably shouldn't have shot the guy that many times), at least in my opinion. But it'd be reasonable if, for instance, your character *wanted* the person dead and shot them and left them for dead only to find out that they didn't die. There are other scenarios in which this would be reasonable, and I'll leave it up to your imagination. Also, you could have your character *accidentally* kill someone with a stray bullet, spell, or even a deliberate punch that happened to connect to a sensitive place (or hit someone already injured).
The point is that you, as the player, decide when your character makes this mistake. It's true that this puts a lot of power in the hands of the players, but if you don't trust the people you play with, I'd suggest discussing with them what type of game you'd like to be playing in.
Alternately, use compels.
If a wizard uses a powerful, obviously dangerous spell on a mortal, the GM could always compel them to accidentally kill their target. Of course, the same is also true if you have a character with supernatural strength punching someone, or a guy with a anti-material rifle shooting at someone, etc.
If you are looking for a barrier make it simple. Compare the attack roll-3 to base weapon damage, as you are pretty much combining a maneuver with an attack. So say you have an attack of 9 you can easily control a weapon of 6, any more than that and likelihood of you killing them increases.[/quote}
I like that, I'm going to discuss a system like that with my group.
The "In your game" sections are specifically speaking to and about players and not characters. You can play it how you like, but your position isn't explicitly supported in the rules (and note, mine isn't either, I just feel that these sections make a clear indication of the designers intent).
The problem is that players generally will NEVER choose to have negative long term/perment effects hit their character. Now making them uncomfortable in short term heck yea, but accidently breaking a law as written, is perment and it isn’t an accident if the player doesn’t want it to be (which doesn't follow how the novels are read).
The problem is that players generally will NEVER choose to have negative long term/perment effects hit their character. Now making them uncomfortable in short term heck yea, but accidently breaking a law as written, is perment and it isn’t an accident if the player doesn’t want it to be (which doesn't follow how the novels are read).
That has come up before, and it's a way to do it, my problem with it though is that is seems to arbitrary. Since when this comes into question it is generally a case of causing the Wizard to become an NPC the compel system leads to one of three scenarios.
1) The Wizard has no fate chips and therefor become an NPC because the GM is mean.
2) The Wizard has fate chips and unless he wants to retire the character has to give one up because the GM is a little mean.
3) The GM is not mean which means Wizards without Fate chips enjoy the benefit of being incapable of accidentally killing.
None of those are very satisfying to me.
I'm not saying that all Weapon: 4 attacks are the same, I'm simply saying that all of them are potentially lethal.
The problem is that players generally will NEVER choose to have negative long term/permanent effects hit their character. Now making them uncomfortable in short term heck yea, but accidently breaking a law as written, is permanent and it isn’t an accident if the player doesn’t want it to be (which doesn't follow how the novels are read).
It's true that those sections encourage the group to discuss what they'd find reasonable. I'm unclear what you think is inconsistent. There is simply no mechanic in the game for a player to have their character accidentally kill another character without the player wanting to, or the group finding a lethal result the *only* reasonable thing that could happen. These sections encourage the players and GM to decide, with each other, what reasonable consequences are, which is exceptionally good advice.
I understand that FATE is a different system than most, but I find it difficult to believe that the distinction between player and character choice is *that* unclear. Especially since this system relies on that distinction much more than most other game systems.
I find that conclusion shortsighted. If the GM informs the group of his intentions(i.e., to compel for death on every attack made with weapon ratings greater than 3 or something) and enforces this consistently, then more reasonable possibilities are:
1) All players who don't want to accidentally kill the wrong person will keep a fate point in reserve to ensure that they'll never suffer the consequences of accidentally killing their targets while still using full force.
2) The players start using attacks with lower weapon ratings whenever they're up against something they don't want to accidentally kill.
3) They do neither and accept the resulting consequences.
Sure, but that in effect is no different than my argument, it simply provides the players with different type of buy out option.
If the player of a wizard character decides to go ahead and use high weapon rating magical attacks on a mortal without having a fate point in reserve, they know what the consequences are and accept them. Alternately, if said player has fate points to spare, they can go ahead and use maximum force without worries, because they plan on narratively enforcing their desired outcome(by using a fate point).
It's that simple.
I grew up in AD&D.
Then you should have always been expecting your character to die. That's not surprise. Hell, did you put on pants? If yes then you were already tangling with death.
I can agree with you on this. However it seems like you're arguing that all weapon:4 and higher attacks are always lethal (For example your earlier argument about Agatha seems to be stating that all sleep spells higher than weapon:4 are lethal). If we're misunderstanding you I apologize. I'd just like to point out that I'm not the only one who appears to have this misconception.
Sounds like you need to meet some better players. As a player I personally have taken Lawbreaker voluntarily. It was dramatic and very fun for all.
The biggest reason I'm so passionate about this is due to the scenario brought up by the OP. I have seen this kind of thing in action. It almost always leads to schisms in gaming groups, and the death of friendships. Regardless of the circumstances if you are not honest and straightforward about this kind of issue it will become a problem.
"Surprise your character is dead" is never a good solution to any problem. It just leads to hurt feelings.
True, but when the "In your game' sections warn the players about the dangers accidentally killing that strongly suggests that it's possible for the players to accidentally kill.
It hasn't even come up in my game yet, I just feel it's important to have a clear understanding with your group before it becomes a problem.
Well I know I have atleast one high powered spell that would not be fatal in pretty much any circumstance.
A spirit invocation that induces sensory deprivation as a result, basically it makes you blind, deaf, mute, unable to smell or actively feel something with the sense of touch.Sort of overloading the senses causing them to fail temporarily (or not). Alternatively you could say this sensory overload causes blackout easily enough too.
We see something exactly like this with Molly's One Woman Rave spell (if less complete in its effects).
Sure, it's possible.
Let's say we play Harry Dresden who has the Aspect "The building was on fire and it wasn't my fault"
He throws his big fire spell with a Weapon: 6 value and takes out all the mortal thugs without killing them but leaving horrible burns and scars.
As a GM you can always compel the aspect to let the warehouse catch fire and tell to the player: "well you used such a lot of power the warehouse is burning and the poor thugs who cannot move by themselves are going to be fully roasted".
Right, which is why I think it should never be a surprise and that it should be an easy to remember hard rule that your table agrees to live by. The only options other than a real rule is that it's impossible (which as I've stated removes something I think is very important from the game) or it's arbitrary.
Again this seems to me more like a maneuver than an attack, I would place it at a highish TN due to the effect, but then simply compel the target whenever they would try to do something they reasonable couldn't. I mean, an Extreme even just a severe consequence can stay with a character for years, shutting someones senses down to the extent that they couldn't react for that long very well may kill them.
Right, and in that situation you're now telling your player "Ok, so despite there not being a real rule about it I've decided to make your character an NPC because you have this aspect' (or alternatively "Ok, so now because you have this aspect give me a fate chip or your can't play your character anymore").
I think that may way is much less likely to cause your players to quit the game in a rage.
Thing is most players will not want to be in (and in turn not play in, if your the GM) games where their characters are nerfed so heavily, especially when your investing so much refresh into the powers to begin with. If you were to insist on that House Rule (as I think your hard and fast ruling would basically be just that) I would say that giving a +1 refresh rebate would be only fair as a result for you handicapping those players so heavily when they /are/ paying for them full cost.
Don't matter, the way the Lawbreakers are written is that you have to directly kill them with magic for it to be an LB. Thats why setting fire to a building and them dying is a no no, but binding them in place and cutting their heads off with a sword is not.If they die because its a secondary effect (walk in front of a speeding car for example) then no LB, but if you were to say cut their parachute, or blast them with flame you do get it.
Tallyrand you seem to have a concept that something has to be either an attack or a manouvre whereas there are plenty of things that could be seen as both take for example throwing something at peoples eyes this could be a manouvre to inflict the temporary blinded aspect or it could be an attack which will have blind as an extreme concequence the exact same effects could be done with a spirit bright light attack or manouvre.
Nope, cause the thugs are not dead yet.
You are giving him a choice to save them, extinguishing the fire.
This can bring to interesting situations:
let's suppose the BBG is escaping with the MCGuffin and the main purpose of the thugs is to let him put a safe distance between the wizard and him (and the not-so-secondary purpose to end the PC's miserable life).
Do the character choose to run after the BBG and to be a LawBreaker or to save the thugs and his soul, but giving the BBG an advantage?
A spirit invocation that induces sensory deprivation as a result, basically it makes you blind, deaf, mute, unable to smell or actively feel something with the sense of touch.Sort of overloading the senses causing them to fail temporarily (or not). Alternatively you could say this sensory overload causes blackout easily enough too.
True, but when the "In your game' sections warn the players about the dangers accidentally killing that strongly suggests that it's possible for the players to accidentally kill.
Several people on the 'you can't accidentally kill in DFRPG' side keep coming at this as if your position was in some way factually supported by the rules. It isn't, the rules are neutral on the subject as this is a very subjective game, my position is simply what I read as the intent of the games creators. In addition I, and I belive this is why the creators would intend it this way, believe that providing the possibility for accidental killing makes the game more dynamic and dramatic and makes the story more interesting. If any wizard can throw around almost any spell without fear of consequence then you don't really have Harry Dresden (who is constantly worried about the consequences of his actions), you have a a urban fantasy superhero who cockily blows up anything that gets into his way. Tension and forcing characters (and players) to make hard decisions (Do I go all out and risk killing him or to I hold back and risk getting hit again?) are what good storytelling are made of so far as how I view it.
Yes, this is a house rule, as is saying that killing accidentally is impossible, as I've said several times before, neither is supported directly by the rules.I am not saying do it make wizards more powerful, but when you try to railroad their characters with threats of having to either "do as I say or retire the character" which is basically what happens when you limit what they can do with it. Perhaps instead of giving them a rebate you don't charge for the Lawbreaker in question when you have them take it? I mean the twisting of aspects, and sending the Wardens after them seems to be to be penalty enough, and much more fun from an RPing perspective then making them create a new PC entirely.
I don't think it's nerfed at all. Evocation and Thaumaturgy are IMO inarguably the most potent expenditure of refresh in the game, and I think that the risk of law breaking is something that does a good job balancing them. A wizard, without any obvious weapons and without preperation can throw a Weapon: 2 attack over a zone, that's the equivalent of shooting everyone in the area with a pistol. That's VERY powerful and something that pretty much only Wizards can do and can do so with no chance of becoming a law breaker. Alternatively when not dealing with a mortal a Wizard can throw a Weapon: 5 attack or higher at one or multiple targets at range with is something only replication perhaps by a super strong character throwing a truck, and again he can do this without preparation and completely by surprise.
If I was playing with a group who would not play unless Wizards were even more powerful, I probably wouldn't want to play with that group anyway to be perfectly honest.
I disagree, and again I think that the designers disagree as well. If pushing someone off a building is sufficiently direct to gain lawbreaker, then lighting that building of fires is so as well.What are we disagreeing on here exactly we both agree that lighting a building on fire and some mook dying inside it and pushing someone off a building is a lawbreaker. Thats because its a direct action on your part, something YOU did to cause it that directly resulted in the death. Secondary effects like the wardens binding someone in place with a spell then lopping their heads off with their swords is not a lawbreaker, likewise neither is blinding them, and they walk in front of a 70 mile per hour traffic. You did not cause their deaths, at all, that was all secondary. Its perfectly stated as such in the books, else how could the Wardens NOT get 1st Lawbreaker every time they hold a summary execution?
This is the second time you've made this claim. The rules *do* in fact, support the idea that only time an accidental death is going to happen is when a player decides that it happens. The rule is that when a "Taken Out" effect happens, the person that does it gets to decide what happens. The sections you're talking about *never* say that it's possible for a player to have a character accidentally kill someone without their consent. What they do say is that you should discuss how the players should deal with these situations.
It says that you should discuss how important you want the First Law to be. The advice given is that you, as the player, shouldn't take these situations lightly because characters being played consistently with the Dresden Files setting wouldn't take these situations lightly. This is important because reasonable players *should* decide that their character has killed another when they use lethal force and this section encourages that. But you aren't required to. It doesn't say that in the section for "Taken Out" and it doesn't say it under the "In your game" sections despite your claim to the contrary.
The lack of any rules to support your claim makes it pretty clear that your interpretation of the writers "intent" is incorrect. Their "intent" is to stress that the players and the GM shouldn't throw around lethal magic and decide that they never kill anyone because this isn't in line with the setting. This is perfectly consistent with the rule that the player decides what happens when a "taken out" result happens.
But in the situation where the character has only one refresh it isn't a choice, that's what I'm saying. A compel should ALWAYS be a choice (saving of course those situations where the character is without Fate chips). When you're giving the player the choice of 'Save the thugs or become an NPC' what you're really doing is railroading them into saving the thugs.
In this instance I can see it being an attack from intent, however I dislike this being a permanent thing. If a consequence results from the attack that means that either you're constantly creating the effect (in which case you're constantly using energy as long as the consequence remains in place) or you're physically transforming them (Which is a no-no). In this case I'd probably side with Tallyrand and call it a maneuver, unless you could give me a reason.
I am not saying do it make wizards more powerful, but when you try to railroad their characters with threats of having to either "do as I say or retire the character" which is basically what happens when you limit what they can do with it. Perhaps instead of giving them a rebate you don't charge for the Lawbreaker in question when you have them take it? I mean the twisting of aspects, and sending the Wardens after them seems to be to be penalty enough, and much more fun from an RPing perspective then making them create a new PC entirely.
What are we disagreeing on here exactly we both agree that lighting a building on fire and some mook dying inside it and pushing someone off a building is a lawbreaker. Thats because its a direct action on your part, something YOU did to cause it that directly resulted in the death. Secondary effects like the wardens binding someone in place with a spell then lopping their heads off with their swords is not a lawbreaker, likewise neither is blinding them, and they walk in front of a 70 mile per hour traffic. You did not cause their deaths, at all, that was all secondary. Its perfectly stated as such in the books, else how could the Wardens NOT get 1st Lawbreaker every time they hold a summary execution?
Its not a transformation so much as major physical process. Heres what would happen on a step by step ladder (but it would happen all at once)
Generates a noise so loud you burst their eardrums, a light so bright they become blinded, so much stress on the vocal cords (sonic/kinetic energy perhaps?) and nerve endings that they fail as a bodies defense mechanism to limit damage to itself and keep the mind from fracturing, and I can't think of a reasonable way for smell to fail so they still have that, but for the immediate effects the person in question would be so disoriented it would hardly matter. None of this need be phrased as permanent, just just long term enough for them not to pop up again for the length of the session/campaign.Now for all of this would probably require a VERY high discipline to do, so it would probably have to be done as a Rote Spell to pull it off without backlash or anything.
I feel that drama and good story comes from limitations, and if there are no limitations on characters then there is simply no reason to have a rule book at all, and don't get me wrong that can be fun to, it just isn't DFRPG.
Its not a transformation so much as major physical process. Heres what would happen on a step by step ladder (but it would happen all at once)
Generates a noise so loud you burst their eardrums, a light so bright they become blinded, so much stress on the vocal cords (sonic/kinetic energy perhaps?) and nerve endings that they fail as a bodies defense mechanism to limit damage to itself and keep the mind from fracturing, and I can't think of a reasonable way for smell to fail so they still have that, but for the immediate effects the person in question would be so disoriented it would hardly matter. None of this need be phrased as permanent, just just long term enough for them not to pop up again for the length of the session/campaign.Now for all of this would probably require a VERY high discipline to do, so it would probably have to be done as a Rote Spell to pull it off without backlash or anything.
But any noise loud enough to deafen someone permanently (or temporarily but potentially for years) can also potentially kill them.
The majority of the time people go deaf from loud noises before there head explodes and the majority of the time is enough of the time to declare that they are deaf or unconsious from the pain of burst ear drums.
Actually generally when a noise is enough to kill someone it's because their lungs collapsed, and I agree most of the time people don't die, but then most of the time the noise isn't weaponized and very rarely really will a single loud noise cause permanent deafness.
And all that is being aimed for here is temporary deafness of meaningful duration. They'll recover in a few days or weeks.
I'm not saying do as I say or retire your character, I'm saying that if you do certain things you risk retiring your character. Similarly if a character pissed on the leg of the Winter Queen I would feel fully justified in removing that character from the game. I feel that drama and good story comes from limitations, and if there are no limitations on characters then there is simply no reason to have a rule book at all, and don't get me wrong that can be fun to, it just isn't DFRPG.I think your trying to create a blanket ruling on what *is* DFRPG and what is *not* which I believe is a mistake. To use your example of pissing on the Winter Queens leg, first what is more fun, out right killing that character/rendering it into an NPC, or making the characters life hell, but in a dramatic and sufficiently cool fashion as a result. Maybe instead of killing the PC the Winter Queen decides the PC in question now owes her a HUGE debt because of the insult offered, which mechanically could be represented with a bunch of points of sponsor debt that must be payed off in story.
When did I suggest that killing with a Wardens sword might garner the Law Breaker power? We're not disagreeing on how direct magic has to be to count against the power, we're disagreeing on how far someone can push an attack before the put themselves at risk of killing someone.The wardens sword is just one example, my point is, is that the grade of the attack in question is just its potency, not its effect. All that is purely apart of the metagame, not all of magic is blasts of fire and bursts of lightning which is what seems to be your point of view (from what I can tell I very well could be wrong), I see no reason why you couldn't do as I suggested above, its just as effective but with far more finesse which so long as it fits the character concept I see no problem with it.
But any noise loud enough to deafen someone permanently (or temporarily but potentially for years) can also potentially kill them.Umm http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2298/can-a-noise-be-loud-enough-to-kill-you
Well I know I have atleast one high powered spell that would not be fatal in pretty much any circumstance.
A spirit invocation that induces sensory deprivation as a result, basically it makes you blind, deaf, mute, unable to smell or actively feel something with the sense of touch.Sort of overloading the senses causing them to fail temporarily (or not). Alternatively you could say this sensory overload causes blackout easily enough too.
We see something exactly like this with Molly's One Woman Rave spell (if less complete in its effects).
I think your trying to create a blanket ruling on what *is* DFRPG and what is *not* which I believe is a mistake. To use your example of pissing on the Winter Queens leg, first what is more fun, out right killing that character/rendering it into an NPC, or making the characters life hell, but in a dramatic and sufficiently cool fashion as a result. Maybe instead of killing the PC the Winter Queen decides the PC in question now owes her a HUGE debt because of the insult offered, which mechanically could be represented with a bunch of points of sponsor debt that must be payed off in story.
Similarly things like Lawbreakers should be used to make the game more interesting for the players in question, NOT arbitrarily punish them which from (again what I can tell I may be wrong) you seem to think is what they exist for. If your using the Lawbreakers to punish characters, then I think their a problem with communication and difference in play style between the GM and the players and that is a much deeper issue that would need to be resolved in entirety.
The wardens sword is just one example, my point is, is that the grade of the attack in question is just its potency, not its effect. All that is purely apart of the metagame, not all of magic is blasts of fire and bursts of lightning which is what seems to be your point of view (from what I can tell I very well could be wrong), I see no reason why you couldn't do as I suggested above, its just as effective but with far more finesse which so long as it fits the character concept I see no problem with it.
Umm http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2298/can-a-noise-be-loud-enough-to-kill-you
So its technically possible just REALLY unlikely given the level of noise needed to pull it off. Their is a big "safe" zone for driving someone deaf but not dead atleast according to this article.
Personally I think it's more fun not having players who don't consider the consequences of their characters actions. I put the guy who pisses on the queen's leg in the Dresden files in the same camp as the guy who kills another party member in his sleep. That's why I think it's important to let your players know that there are limits to what their characters can do without consequence.
I can think of many circumstances when that would be fatal. it the target is driving a car, piloting a plane, etc then they could die.
Which is another way of saying that any spell can be fatal under the right circumstances. Any spell. Back in the days of AD&D (first ed) I saw people use a cantrip to cause death.
He should make that abundantly clear, which is not something that was done there.
GM: "Are you sure you want to do that? After all, you are talking about using LETHAL magic against a MORTAL foe. A spell that powerful is almost guaranteed to kill them, which is a violation of the Laws of Magic."
Regarding refusal of concession, the attacker does not have a flat-out right to refuse. Rather, the group has the right to decide that the concession is unreasonable, generally on the basis that it goes too easy on the conceeding character. The attacker would need to come up with a convincing reason that having the target die is an unreasonable result of their action.
As an aside ... what element would 'Vertigo Wave' be?
Using a Concession, to kill the character doing it, is just a bad twisting of that spirit.Well, to be fair, my point is not to use mechanics as a gotcha. Instead, the idea is to present a way -- within the system -- of making the Laws of Magic able to be enforced. Imagine how the novels would be different if Dresden was confident that you could cast "Fuego!" at anyone he wanted and know exactly what the outcome would be? Careful spellcasters, who keep the Laws in mind when casting should never be impacted by the use of the rules I'm suggesting. Reckless spellcasters, whose players deliberately abuse the game mechanics to avoid dealing with the Laws should be made aware of the potential results of their misuse of magic first ... and if they refuse to abide by the Laws, well that's what Lawbreakers are there for, right?
Once the dice are rolled, a taken out result is in the hands of the attacker. The attacker can narrate any reasonable result he chooses. I would argue that dropping a nuclear bomb on a city then narrating how everyone woke up with severe burns and massive headaches but unlimately recovered would not qualify as reasonable. Likewise, setting off a force 12 flame burst attack in a crowd would not reasonably result in universal heavy tans and mild concussions. But within reason, the attacker controls the story.
But I'd argue that the risk of death and the risk of accidentally or deliberately killing is very much a core concept of Dresden Files, and therefore stressing that care must be taken when wielding magic is certainly not inappropriate.I would argue that the risk of death and the risk of accidentally or deliberately killing is very much a core concept of Dresden Files only because most of the Dresden File novel series is told from the perspective of Harry Dresden and his struggle to control his power.
And you think if a player goes to the trouble of designing a spell attack specifically designed to not be lethal, then he isn't considering the consequences of his action? He pays for that spell too. Either he spends an enchanted item or potion slot on it, or it is or isn't a rote. If it is a rote, then he has sacrificed one of his rote slots. If it isn't, then he has more trouble pulling off the non-lethal attack. Any way you slice it, a player making a non-lethal attack HAS decided to consider the consequences.
Those sections of the book you quoted 4-some pages ago in no way indicate that it is unreasonable to have particular attacks that are non-lethal despite the stress inflicted. There's plenty of ways to make someone pass out without risking death. You might even pay for this sort of thing in other ways as well. If you make a vertigo spell that screws around with the inner-ear, then chances are it won't work on a lot of supernatural creatures. I'm not convinced that Red Court Vampires are vulnerable to heat exhaustion either (White Court probably are, on the other hand). Beyond that, you've also made a spell that WON'T be capable of killing your enemies, which very often can be quite significant if you can't stay around to "manually adjust" the outcome of a spell.
Remember too, spell strength is how complex the spell is. So if anything a 10-complexity Heat Exhaustion spell might be SAFER than a 4-complexity one. That 10-complexity could go to specifically targeting the aspects of the body that make the heat exhaustion safe and highly effective. Just happens that spending the extra strength on focusing the spell's magic that way also makes it more effective. So overall I don't see how you can possibly say that a weapon greater than X must be lethal. It IS completely arbitrary where you draw the line. Of course, naturally if you have a highly complex spell like this and you can't quite control it, going the route of fallout might be a bad idea (depending on your group).
Lots of great discussion! A few arbitrary responses:
Regarding 'nonlethal' phrasing of spells. Yes, I think it's possible to come up with powerful spells that inherently carry a low risk of lethality. Perhaps, for example a well-controlled strangulation spell might qualify -- and if the character was trained in medicine (or combat subdual techniques) it might be stong justification for claiming the ability to apply the spell for just long enough to knock out the target without killing them. Perhaps.
Other spells can't help but be basically lethal in nature. Fire, for example, would pretty much always have a lethality that scaled with power. Sure, you might justify a maneuver that applies "heatstroke" or a w:2 spell that causes burn damage without sigificant chance of death. But a w:6 spell is more powerful than a military-grade flamethrower, and while its certainly possible the target might survive, it seems unreasonable to expect them to. There's a reason Dresden avoids using this kind of spell against mortals.Quote
This though is another problem I'd like to avoid, because after a little while especially if your game has lost a character to accidental Law Breaker, every wizard is going to be throwing around these convoluted spells designed to be incapable of killing. Morgan create earthquakes, Ramirez shoots water lasers and Harry creates pillars of fire, and we have not seen one of them saw "Ok, I'm going to make this spell that prevents signals from traveling down the spinal cord to anything other than the involuntary muscles thereby creating a perfect paralysis" and so I don't think the writers of the game intended for us to do that either.
I think a flaw of the whole discussion is we have forgot that intent precedes the mechanics.
Players, IMHO, should never state: "I use a force 12 flame burst attack" but the whole discussion should be like the following:
Player: "I'm going to take out the whole crowd with a <element> spell"
GM:"What kind of spell?"
P:"<reasonable method to use non-lethal force>"
G:"Ok! This is an attack spell 'cause your aim is to incapacitate them. How many shifts?"
etc.etc.
From this perspective, all becomes simpler.
and if it was intended to be that way you'd have to ask yourself why Harry doesn't spend all of his time learning guaranteed non-lethal spells rather than constantly throwing around fire balls. (yes I know that Harry is in the novels not the game, but still the novels are what the rules are supposed to evoke)The reason I see why Harry doesn't spend his time learning less-than-lethal spells is the same reason why he is such a sucker for damsels in distress. His player doesn't want to change the way he plays Harry. He could swap out "Chivalry is not dead, damnit", but novel after novel, story after story, Harry falls for the same routine. His player need not have taken that Lawbreaker and "Not so subtle, still quick to anger" in the first place, but that's what he did. Does that mean that just because Jim doesn't swap out those Aspects, other players cannot swap out their characters' Aspects? If it was intended for players to swap out their character's Aspects, then you'd have to ask yourself why Harry falls for the same compels over and over again.
To me, this isn't the person considering the consequences of their choices, it's attempting to avoid them. Personally I see players going through convoluted explanations of how their spell is non-lethal to be basically The Dresden Files form of Min-Maxing, and if it was intended to be that way you'd have to ask yourself why Harry doesn't spend all of his time learning guaranteed non-lethal spells rather than constantly throwing around fire balls. (yes I know that Harry is in the novels not the game, but still the novels are what the rules are supposed to evoke)
They don't indicate any level of stress that may cause death no, but what they do indicate is an intent that the choice of whether an enemy dies isn't always in the hands of the player. Also, not for nothing, but personally I would rather sit with my group and agree what level of spell is or is not lethal than have an argument back and forth every day about whether Fairies have an inner ear or what the relative alcohol tolerance of a hexenwolf is.
Ok, so this is actually factually incorrect, the number of shifts in a spell (of which Weapon value has a direct relation) is an indicator of the raw power of the spell not the relative complexity or control of it. That's why shifts of power are limited by Conviction (raw power) instead of Discipline (control) and why Harry (a high Conviction middling Discipline caster) is described as being a powerhouse with little control in the early books.
Harry basically NEVER fights humans. Why would he waste time coming up with non-lethal spells? The Harry argument isn't really compelling when I don't believe he even ever has to knock someone out.
Not always, but then again, you expect that when you are using lethal force. Your argument completely loses its weight when you consider any kind of non-lethal force (and you grant that it can exist).
Err, in fact it is an indicator of both. A very complex spell requires a lot of raw power. That's just how the system works. You can also use raw power in an unrefined way as well. I suppose aspects could come to play here and some might have trouble with say...the subtly of non-lethal spells (if you want to stick to thinking about Harry).
The reason I see why Harry doesn't spend his time learning less-than-lethal spells is the same reason why he is such a sucker for damsels in distress. His player doesn't want to change the way he plays Harry. He could swap out "Chivalry is not dead, damnit", but novel after novel, story after story, Harry falls for the same routine. His player need not have taken that Lawbreaker and "Not so subtle, still quick to anger" in the first place, but that's what he did. Does that mean that just because Jim doesn't swap out those Aspects, other players cannot swap out their characters' Aspects? If it was intended for players to swap out their character's Aspects, then you'd have to ask yourself why Harry falls for the same compels over and over again.
I mean if there's anyone your going to teach equally powerful but less risky magic, it would be the young and inexperienced Wizards that you want out there kicking butt for you without all of them becoming evil.I disagree. You teach your soldiers the skills and techniques you think they need to win the war. In a war with vampires, the assumption may well be that your young and inexperienced Wardens would be facing monsters and you don't need to teach the less-than-lethal tactics/spells.
I disagree. You teach your soldiers the skills and techniques you think they need to win the war. In a war with vampires, the assumption may well be that your young and inexperienced Wardens would be facing monsters and you don't need to teach the less-than-lethal tactics/spells.
But with the way it's being argued here no spell is more or less lethal than any other without there being a house rule. With the attackers player narrating the outcome every attack can be exactly as lethal as is convenient regardless of its special effects or the amount of power pumped into it.
Ok, two things here
1) He fights humans a fair bit, Marcone and his men, evil Wizards, mortal gang members and once or twice the cops just to name a few.
2) From a mechanics argument it doesn't matter if he ever fights humans, if a Weapon: 20 make you dizzy spell is the same as a Weapon: 20 fire spell other than ascetics there's no reason to ever risk killing. Also, if the player narrates the Take Out then there is no reason he could simply narrate the Dizzy attack as lethal whenever it suited him.
Right, and I say that the threshold between Non-Lethal and Lethal force is the gap between Weapon: 2 and Weapon: 3, and by my reading of the rules I suspect that that was the intent of the writers of the game as well.
Ok, just re-read the section to make sure I hadn't missed anything, but no the number of Shifts of Power in a spell represent just that, how much power is there, in fact there is nothing in the spellcasting section discussing the relative complexity of an Evocation. The difficulty in casting a spell with a lot of shifts comes from whether you can managed to control the raw power your putting into it, not whether you are skilled enough to manage its complexity.
That's not what is being argued at all. An evocation designed to be non-lethal is going to be hard to use to justify killing someone. And again, there are the fact that what is non-lethal to a human might not even affect supernatural creatures. Before you go and act like this is too complicated to deal with, remember we already deal with stuff like this in the game. Sunlight, for instance, is lethal to vampires (save Whites), but doesn't hurt humans even if you toss a dozen or more shifts into it.
1) He actually doesn't. There are literally maybe a dozen fights with humans over the course of the books (12 or so YEARS). All "fights" with Marcone are really him just intimidating people as far as I recall; often he just plans to do something like that in fact. And again, there's another way to justify why Harry does this; he's not very subtle.
2) I've already supplied a couple reasons against this here. Harry WOULD want to eliminate supernatural threats, and often doesn't have a lot of time to stick around and finish them off after "taken out" is achieved. Again, just because something is non-lethal to humans doesn't mean it would even hurt a supernatural creature. Neither of these things is a trivial point.
Again, that's an arbitrary line you've decided to draw based on nothing substantial. At best you are what, basing it on the non-lethal technology we have today...which sucks? And from that you extrapolate restrictions on magic? Magic that far exceeds the standard lethal technology we have available for the best infantry? Your reasoning is not sound.
My extrapolation here is certainly no worse than yours. Evocation and Thaumturgy work very similarly in many ways. Complexity in Thaumaturgy and sponsored magic show power and complexity are much the same thing. That event tracks with how attacks and such work with Evocation. The more complex the spell (spray, multiple areas, etc), the more power you need for it.
There's a pretty big difference between making the blanket statement "Humans aren't killed by sunlight" and the statement "Vampires aren't effected by vertigo" and that would only cover one possible 'non-lethal' attack against one possible type of enemy.Actually I think the key idea here is that a non-Weapon: Zero attack can actually deal no damage, even assuming it hits.
It's very hard not to answer this sarcastically, but a dozen fights against humans (I'm thinking it's actually more, but I"ll go with your number for now) in a dozen books isn't rarely, it's almost every time.It's worth noting Harry's fights against humans are almost invariably with mundane weapons. The number of times he uses magic against a human is extremely limited. Even when fighting a demon summoner, he used magic against the demon & environment and hist fists against the human.
What your saying, that killing accidentally isn't possible, isn't supported by the rules sense it says specifically that the Taken Out result must be reasonable. What it at debate here is what is reasonable and what the designers intended reasonable to be, which isn't clearly stated by the rules. So to counter, the lack of any intent suggestion that it is impossible for a player to accidentally have his character kill someone makes it clear IMO that your interpretation is incorrect. But again, it is never clearly stated either way.
That's not even remotely what I've been saying , but it's become clear to me that the distinction the book makes between character choices and player choices isn't going to become clear to you. I never said that accidental death isn't possible. I said that players can't have their characters kill other people accidentally unless they want to. DF gives massive control over a character's story to the player. If they want to have their character accidentally murder someone then they can do that (as long as the result is reasonable). If they want to have almost killed someone but happen to not have then this is also fine (again, as long as it's reasonable).
I'm sure Tallyrand's concept works very well when you have a group of players who are inexperienced and trying to "win" the game. Personally the line between 2 and 3 does seem a bit arbitrary to me, however there is no line (except maybe the line between 0 and 1) that really makes perfect sense, so everyone's going to draw their own arbitrary line.
If one player is playing to "win" then their result will often be unreasonable. That is, if the rest of the group isn't playing to win. And if *everyone* is playing to win, and it's just the GM who thinks that the players aren't adding enough conflict into their character's lives, then I'd suggest that GM either rethink his position or find a new group.
Many game systems are designed to run as a competition. The players compete to conquer the problems presented by the GM. This game system limits that
It's not the GM's responsibility to determine when a character has become boring for a player and decide that the character has suddenly accidentally killed someone. This is the player's choice, not the GM's. The only time they don't get to is when their choice is inconsistent with the setting that was agreed upon by the group.
That's not even remotely what I've been saying , but it's become clear to me that the distinction the book makes between character choices and player choices isn't going to become clear to you. I never said that accidental death isn't possible. I said that players can't have their characters kill other people accidentally unless they want to. DF gives massive control over a character's story to the player. If they want to have their character accidentally murder someone then they can do that (as long as the result is reasonable). If they want to have almost killed someone but happen to not have then this is also fine (again, as long as it's reasonable).
This section, by the way, deliberately doesn't give "mechanics" because they aren't needed
Something occurred to me while I was reading all of this. Both opinions are valid.
This is really awesome. When you have players that are experienced and are trying to come up with a compelling story.
I'm sure Tallyrand's concept works very well when you have a group of players who are inexperienced and trying to "win" the game. Personally the line between 2 and 3 does seem a bit arbitrary to me, however there is no line (except maybe the line between 0 and 1) that really makes perfect sense, so everyone's going to draw their own arbitrary line.
I work with both on a regular basis (my group is very mixed) and I can really see the benefit of what Tallyrand is saying. However there's something about that blanket limitation that really bothers me. I think I would rather talk to my players openly about their feelings on the matter and try to figure out what works best for them. Something I have become aware of recently is that, the goal of gaming being for everyone to have fun, this kind of thing often subverts that goal. The players who want a great story will create it and they will have fun. The players who want to "win" will (or won't), and they will have fun. The GM's fun is the most precarious in a lot of ways, however it's easier if you don't have a lot of preconceived notions about what should and should not happen. Not that that's something I can personally do....
I have never suggested not discussing this sort of thing with your group, as you should every house rule, and unfortunately (or fortunately dependent on your perspective) the rules on this were intentionally left vague by the designers, meaning that both sides of this are house rules. That being said a lot of what creates fun in games is a level of risk and tension, that's why games have skills and damage tracks and I believe that is a great roll that the Laws of magic can play and that it makes the game more fun and interesting if your players know that there is potential danger not only for there character's health but for their soul as well.
As an aside in comparing a lot of this to the novels I believe that one of the reasons you don't see a lot of non-lethal spells is because they are difficult, and not universally useful. Throwing energy wildly at someone is not hard, but having to focus or refine that energy into something precise or restrained enough to incapacitate mortals without hurting them sounds pretty hard. And the fact that the whole supernatural world is trying to stay hidden means the less one interacts with mortals at all the better. Seems to me that Dresden is actually bucking the trend (what with his one mortal encounter a year) with this so he might really want to look into some non-lethal spells, however given his aspects it doesn't seem likely. :)
While I'm sure there are more experienced gaming groups out there we are certainly not 'inexperience' and my position doesn't come from a place of my group is not mature or good enough at the game not to need the rule. My position is that if you put that decision entirely in the hands of the players you remove a necessary element of tension from them game. The reason that there are rules in RPGs is to give a structure for the story and create the mood of whatever the game is attempting to recreate. Tension in games is exceedingly valuable and is never more evident than when the players interact with a take out mechanic, and my position is that the Law of Magic we intended to be used in that way.
That being said, of course both sides are valid, I've said so several times in this conversation, I'm simply arguing what I believe was the designers intent.
I have never suggested not discussing this sort of thing with your group, as you should every house rule, and unfortunately (or fortunately dependent on your perspective) the rules on this were intentionally left vague by the designers, meaning that both sides of this are house rules. That being said a lot of what creates fun in games is a level of risk and tension, that's why games have skills and damage tracks and I believe that is a great roll that the Laws of magic can play and that it makes the game more fun and interesting if your players know that there is potential danger not only for there character's health but for their soul as well.
And this is one place that unfortunately diverges from the game, because 'non-lethal' spells aren't any more difficult than lethal spells, which is why I don't accept that simply a clever description can make an attack guaranteed non-lethal.
That really wasn't a veiled attempt to slight you or your group. Merely a situation that I could see your rule working well with. Some people require structure from their games and this provides a bit of it.
The funny thing is I was actually trying to defend you to others. I can see this being good. I don't think it's necessary for my group, but I certainly don't think it's "wrong".
Also not trying to argue with you here. Just stating that one can have fun without implementing a rule like this. You don't have to force tension on people who may not enjoy it. Which I suppose is a bit of an argument but I really didn't intend it to be.
Is it possible to intentionally kill a thread?
For example, say Sorcerer X puts together a nasty spell with the intention of using it to kill the evil undead necromancer that is threatening the city. The party tracks down the target and the sorcerer lays a trap. Unfortunately, the person the group is actually setting up happens to be the NPC treasure hunter using his Item of Power (a ring that allows for Glamour-like powers) to casually make his way through the hordes of zombies that have infested that part of the city. One big boom later and the group's sorcerer finds himself standing over the body of a dead human.
That's a bit of an extreme example, and it would really only be a danger after the characters failed an assessment to recognize someone was impersonating the Big Bad, but it's the sort of thing that could happen. I also allow for redirecting incoming spell energy (think Harry causing the frozen turkey to fall on the BC vamp's head), so it's also entirely possible an enemy warlock/wizard could cause a lethal spell to be redirected onto an innocent bystander.
These seem like sort of "Surprise, you're dead" (or in this case your character has gone off the deep end) kind of situations, and I'm less a fan of those.Everyone has their preferred methods of dealing with this matter, but for me the key with magic is that the caster has to truly believe in using lethal force. Don't want to kill innocent mortals? Keep your power in check if there are innocents by the fight. The fireball you just threw at the bad guy with the intention of reducing him to ashes can also set the building on fire, possibly threatening innocents/mortals (especially if they're unconscious when the place starts to burn down). The safest way for a caster to fight lethally is to always go for the knockout and just cut the target's throat with a knife afterward, if needed. Any caster throwing spells and going for the kill every time is far more likely to run into unintended consequences, like when Harry went supernova at Bianca's party and burned all those people.
[You might also want to consider feedback. If you throw a lot of shifts, you are more likely not control all of it, and that can also be a way to accidentally break the 1st law.
I think the (potential) problem Sinker was concerned with was more one of 'by all accounts, everyone in the vicinity is a monster, so I'm going to torch them' being followed by 'oops, some of those monsters were actually innocents, disguised with magic as monsters...I guess my character is an NPC, now...I guess I should have opened my Sight on what seemed to be a horde of literally mind-crushingly hideous undead on the off-chance that one of them was actually a human with an item of power...'But that very scenario happens to be a very real danger for spellcasters willing to use deadly force or break any of the other Laws. Molly did so, unintentionally, and by the game rules she only stayed a PC because she was young and still had plenty of Refresh to give. We're talking about a game/system that lays out in detail how to make a character fall over dead while walking down the street, so suddenly losing one's character is something that, by the rules, is perfectly fine. In your example, you would have already needed to fail a Lore/Alertness check to notice something different about one of the baddies, at least in my game.
But that very scenario happens to be a very real danger for spellcasters willing to use deadly force or break any of the other Laws. Molly did so, unintentionally, and by the game rules she only stayed a PC because she was young and still had plenty of Refresh to give. We're talking about a game/system that lays out in detail how to make a character fall over dead while walking down the street, so suddenly losing one's character is something that, by the rules, is perfectly fine. In your example, you would have already needed to fail a Lore/Alertness check to notice something different about one of the baddies, at least in my game.
What it really comes down to is how the GM uses these things with regards to the party. Are you trying to track down a homicidal warlock? It's entirely within the rules for said warlock to acquire a few stray hairs or some of your blood, set up a ritual, sacrifice a wandering vagrant or two, and make you fall over dead while walking down the street. That's within the rules, but most players would find that a rather unsatisfying (and unfair) way to lose a character. It's the same with deadly magic. There should always be a way (or two or three) for the caster to avoid killing unintentionally, but removing the threat of the Laws altogether just makes using magic even more powerful than it already is.
While I agree that that sort of situation is completely within both the rules and the spirit of the game it is someone I would personally never do to my players for a very simple reason. That sort of trap leads to the overly cautious player, which anyone who has played RPGs for a significant amount of time will probably have come across. This is the guy who in a D&D game takes 20 on every 5 foot square searching for traps and create elaborate schemes to open dungeon doors from around the corner. The guy who in a Shadowrun game kills every living thing he comes into contact with to ensure there are no witnesses and insists on spending the first two sessions of ever run going over hundreds of scenarios trying to plan the perfect entry. I do as much as I can to encourage my players to be active and smart instead of choked by paranoia.
Fundamentally I agree, I just feel that there are boundaries you shouldn't cross in the interest of fun and fairness. I've had characters in other games die in there sleep or what have you, and it never makes anyone but the most sadistic GM happy.
The main point though has already been mentioned (a couple times if worded differently) and has to deal with play style. When you leave all the power and decision in the players hands it reduces the "horror" factor and "suspense" (for the PLAYER not the CHARACTER) while you are gaming. Guess it really comes down to if you want to tell an epic story or make things a bit more realistic. Depending on the group both can be awesome experiences, even though I generally prefer the second. However, it is harder and takes more effort and thought for everyone involved. Reminds me of the first question I always ask when joining a Shadow Run game. Where is the game going to fall on the pink Mohawk compared to the pure profession scale?Why can't you have both within the same game? The people who want "horror" and "suspense" can have it for their characters and the people who don't don't. It is similar to having both pink mohawk and cold professional in SR.
That's where the actual negotiating of concessions comes in, rather than the GM or player simply mandating the result, and the reasonableness clause, againThat said, any player being asked by the GM whether or not he's sure he wants to send a Weapon:6 attack their way might get a clue...and mebbe reduce it to a Weapon: 1 or 2 attack and say, "I'm cutting them off at teh knees."
'Everyone survives with horrible burns' is not meaningfully less reasonable than 'everyone dies'
Nor is it just the GM