Sample Combat

[infusco]

Just when I thought I had the whole invoke for effect vs Compel down pat....

Can someone please explain how Entanglement works on page 293.

All it does is place a Bound In Place aspect on the target, and adds one point to make it last the entire scene.

So if this was cast on V what happens on V's turn? Can he move? Does the aspect by itself lock down the target. Does the GM compel it? if so can the target buy himself out of it? Does the caster need to burn an invoke for effect to make it work?

Well, first off, the spell description itself clashes with the rules. You can't make an evocation maneuver last an entire scene.

This one's a bit tricky as it adds an Aspect. You could, in principle, compel that aspect to prevent your foe from changing zones, but that could end up costing you more than a few Fate points over multiple exchanges. Or you could tag that Aspect for a reroll or +2 to actions against that foe that would normally be defended by Athletics (which is pretty much all of them).

[Bubba Amon Hotep]

Let me just say I am glad the Original Poster Posted the example of combat.

Let me also say that two groups of players can run the same scene, and come up with different actions/outcomes.

Let me also say that two GM's will rule differently on actions, and use the rules in different ways.

Now let me say, if both groups had fun.  The GM's and Players did it right.

I just hope all these discussions about rulings, and meanings, are not happening around the table. 

Afterwords, okay.  During, NOT okay.  Everyone is there to have fun, not rules lawyer.

[Arcteryx]

Now let me say, if both groups had fun.  The GM's and Players did it right.
I just hope all these discussions about rulings, and meanings, are not happening around the table. 
Afterwords, okay.  During, NOT okay.  Everyone is there to have fun, not rules lawyer.

And therein lies the ultimate version of the truth right there. Well said man.

[Doc Nova]

Let me just say I am glad the Original Poster Posted the example of combat.

Let me also say that two groups of players can run the same scene, and come up with different actions/outcomes.

Let me also say that two GM's will rule differently on actions, and use the rules in different ways.

Now let me say, if both groups had fun.  The GM's and Players did it right.

I just hope all these discussions about rulings, and meanings, are not happening around the table. 

Afterwords, okay.  During, NOT okay.  Everyone is there to have fun, not rules lawyer.

I couldn't agree more.  If in doubt, I always go back to Rule 0.

[JesterOC]

The existence of rule 0 should not stop the discussion that was going on here.

It is important to take a stand and tell others how you think the game should be played, and why it should be played like that.  Only then does it become useful information, where players can use rule 0 to determine which style they like best.

 

[YuriPup]

I want to go back to the tazer field and confining someone with magic to get them killed. I think that if it doesn't count as a breaking of the First Law, any wizard who keeps someone around who is willing to kill will be able to kill far too easily. I would also say that the wizards will is far to involved in the taking of the life not to be tainted.

The reason the ward swords don't count is the will to create the enchantment on the sword is far, far removed from the will used to do the killing. Additionally, the swords don't do magical damage, as far as we know,  and are enchanted only to cut through enchantments and don't do extra damage to flesh. The magic of the sword isn't involved in the kill--removing the enchanting will by another degree.

I am thinking, on the laws, that the scale to be used is how much is the attacker's free will being used to magically remove the defender's free will.

[greycouncilmember]

I want to go back to the tazer field and confining someone with magic to get them killed. I think that if it doesn't count as a breaking of the First Law, any wizard who keeps someone around who is willing to kill will be able to kill far too easily. I would also say that the wizards will is far to involved in the taking of the life not to be tainted.

The reason the ward swords don't count is the will to create the enchantment on the sword is far, far removed from the will used to do the killing. Additionally, the swords don't do magical damage, as far as we know,  and are enchanted only to cut through enchantments and don't do extra damage to flesh. The magic of the sword isn't involved in the kill--removing the enchanting will by another degree.

I am thinking, on the laws, that the scale to be used is how much is the attacker's free will being used to magically remove the defender's free will.

In the DFRPG system you choose the method of taking somebody out.  You don't have to kill them.  Why not just knock them out?  If I thought for a second that my tazer spell was being used to kill, I would not use it.  That's the kind of spell you use to buy some time possibly when you want to negotiate or you just need to stop them from doing something?  if a caster's life is in danger and he stops somebody in a way that only prevents them from further hurting, how does that break any laws? 

[babel2uk]

I want to go back to the tazer field and confining someone with magic to get them killed. I think that if it doesn't count as a breaking of the First Law, any wizard who keeps someone around who is willing to kill will be able to kill far too easily.

At which point they are likely to be attracting the attention of the Mortal authorities. Don't confuse not breaking the First Law of Magic with not having to face consequences of killing someone. It might not cause an instant Wizards trial, but it will certainly cause the Wardens to start watching you, and you can expect hard questions to be asked about why you did it. And the answers had better be damn good.

[eberg]

Well, first off, the spell description itself clashes with the rules. You can't make an evocation maneuver last an entire scene.

I got clarification from Fred that Aspects generated from Evocation maneuvers work the same as non-magical maneuvers. That is, if you get at least one shift of effort, it is sticky and will last the scene or until it is removed.

[Jaxom Faux]

the book says that if someone dies as a result of your magic (even accidentally or through other means ie. falling to death) that you are still responsible for the effects of you magic and therefore a lawbreaker 1st.

you holding them helpless while someone else decaps them means they still died as a result of your magic. lawbreaker time.

[wyvern]

...But then they didn't die as a result of your magic.  They died as a result of someone else decapitating them.  Certainly, your magic made that possible.  But the spell you cast did not have lethal intent behind it.  That'd be like saying "Well, I healed my friend, and then he went and killed the guy who hurt him.  I guess I need to take a lawbreaker power, because my healing spell caused that other guy's death."

Say you use magic to make a warlock fall asleep.  Then you slit his throat.  Did you break the first law?  What if you tie him up and wake him up before killing him?  What if you tie him up, wake him up, and hand him off to the wardens for a "trial" that will inevitably end in someone else killing him?  By your logic, *all* of those are Lawbreaker actions.  So you're telling me that every warden who ever uses magic at any point when apprehending a warlock has a Lawbreaker power?  Really?

I'd draw the line at there being a direct causal effect between your magic and the target's death - with no further act of free will involved.  Summon a demon to kill someone for you?  Direct causal effect - your magic resulted in their death with no further act of free will involved.  Blast the ceiling to make it crash down on the enemy?  Direct causal effect.  Use magic to trigger a rube goldberg device that eventually sets off a lethal trap?  Direct causal effect.  Immobilize a target so that some second action - whether by you or someone else (as long as it's by a creature that has free will) - can kill them?  No direct causal effect.  Gift your allies with a potion of speed so they can run down a particularly fleet-of-foot enemy and kill it?  No direct causal effect.  Etc.

[ClassDunce]

...But then they didn't die as a result of your magic.  They died as a result of someone else decapitating them. 

Say you use magic to make a warlock fall asleep.  Then you slit his throat.  Did you break the first law?  What if you tie him up and wake him up before killing him?  What if you tie him up, wake him up, and hand him off to the wardens for a "trial" that will inevitably end in someone else killing him?  By your logic, *all* of those are Lawbreaker actions.  So you're telling me that every warden who ever uses magic at any point when apprehending a warlock has a Lawbreaker power?  Really?

Let's go back to the sleeping and then slitting his throat thing, in my mind that would be a violation of the first law of magic. It's well established that a wizard can't use magic to do something that they don't believe in, it does go back to intent. The spell was used so that you could then slit his throat. The spell was used to kill a man. Capturing a Warlock and turning him over to the Wardens to be tried (if you can call it a trail) is not breaking the first law of magic even if he's then executed, You're working within the laws of the White Council.

[babel2uk]

My opinion is that it's a matter of degrees of separation of magic and killing. In my view the example of throat slitting while target is sleeping due to a spell simply isn't a breach of the First Law. Yes it's murder, yes it's unpleasant, but the actual weapon that dealt the killing blow is unconnected to the magic that caused the sleep. Otherwise the Wardens themselves would be guilty of breaking the first law if they used magic in a fight that resulted in the death of a warlock. The sleep didn't cause the death, it merely made it easier to accomplish. The magic wasn't directly responsible. The example used in the First Law section of the book mentions using air to throw someone off a building. If the magic is a direct cause it violates the first law. Otherwise it's just likely to get you looked at closely by the Wardens and the mortal authorities. In the sleep case the slitting of the throat is a completely separate act from putting the person to sleep. In the air blast example from the rulebook the spell actually throws the person to their death.

My reading in the section on the First Law is that there is a lot of unpleasant grey area that may not result in a Lawbreaker stunt (so no metaphysical consequences) but may result in a trial and a Doom of Damocles punishment. Much of it is going to be down to personal interpretation by the GM, depending on how severe they want the First Law to be.

[Lukas the Dead]

First off, Thank you eberg for the example.

My opinion is that it's a matter of degrees of separation of magic and killing.

I like to add in one more variable to that equation, and that is intention. If you put them to sleep in order to kill them, you used magic with the intention of killing. It's a little more restrictive, but still allows some escape from an accident. Blowing someone off a building still lands you in first law territory, but holding a person who someone else kills only gets you a Lawbreaker stunt if you knew that would be the outcome. (However, I'd except most wizards would be upset by that outcome, if only for the fact they know they are still in deep trouble if the wardens find out.)

My reading in the section on the First Law is that there is a lot of unpleasant grey area that may not result in a Lawbreaker stunt (so no metaphysical consequences) but may result in a trial and a Doom of Damocles punishment. Much of it is going to be down to personal interpretation by the GM, depending on how severe they want the First Law to be.

Which leads into this, which I completely agree with. You can avoid the metaphysical consequences and still have to face some consequences. It allows the GM to go, "Yes, I am aware of the difference, but the Wardens aren't so discerning."

[infusco]

I got clarification from Fred that Aspects generated from Evocation maneuvers work the same as non-magical maneuvers. That is, if you get at least one shift of effort, it is sticky and will last the scene or until it is removed.

Uhm ... then why this line from that section on page 253?:

"As with other effects, you can pay an additional shift to make the effect persistent at the cost of 1 shift per additional *exchange*"

Me thinks a new sticky thread with Errata and an FAQ should rear it's head soon