So the first law can't be broken unless you WANT to break it, right?

[toturi]

A smart GM will however discourage it's abuse easily. "Oh look, your blast has alerted the people in the next room. They rush in. What? No it's not a new scene, everyone's still taken out. Well that sucks now doesn't it."

Actually if his players are all in on this, then the GM has bigger problems than what you see as an abuse of the rules.

[sinker]

I don't necessarily see it as an abuse of the rules, only that it is a viable bit of rules that could be abused. If it happens occasionally I have no problem, if the wizard walks in and rains fire (or explodes) every room then that might be an issue.

[Wolfwood2]

Applying the Lawbreaker stunt can have huge consequences for a player character, up to and inclduing suddenly becoming an NPC.  (Let's face it, a lot of spellcasters play on very low refresh.)  I would never, ever force a lawbreaker stunt on a PC without explicit out of character buy-in from the player, any more than I would kill a PC without discussing it with the player.

No, not even with a Compel.  Compels are there to create complications, not to radically and permanently alter the character.

That said, if the PC throws around a bunch of potentially-lethal evocations on mortals it may be appropriate to apply compels on his high concept and even request aspect changes to reflect how the PC constantly skirts the law and people are beginning to look at him suspiciously

[stitchy1503]

Guys, i'd just like to point out that the rules do say "within reason" meaning if a 20 shift spell is dropped on a zone as in intended to kill the monsters (who are much more resiliant than the humans) its going to crush everyone in the zone, if a 4 shift attack is like a hand granade a 20 shift attack is like a mini nuke, it isnt "within reason" for people to survive that. As long as the player is aware that their action will result in the lawbreaker stunt i'm in agreement that they should get it.

[Tallyrand]

Applying the Lawbreaker stunt can have huge consequences for a player character, up to and inclduing suddenly becoming an NPC.  (Let's face it, a lot of spellcasters play on very low refresh.)  I would never, ever force a lawbreaker stunt on a PC without explicit out of character buy-in from the player, any more than I would kill a PC without discussing it with the player.

No, not even with a Compel.  Compels are there to create complications, not to radically and permanently alter the character.

That said, if the PC throws around a bunch of potentially-lethal evocations on mortals it may be appropriate to apply compels on his high concept and even request aspect changes to reflect how the PC constantly skirts the law and people are beginning to look at him suspiciously

This comes down largely to GM style, and I for the most part agree with it.  That being said I would also not allow my players to take actions without the possibility of consequence.  I don't kill a character unless I have permission from the player OR they do something very stupid (note that I am the new GM Humannoyed mentioned, and for this particular story I have warned the players that death will be a possibility and gave them the opportunity to opt out of the 'hard mode' nature I'm intending to run the game with). 

I saw a little bit ago on this thread the argument that stress is an abstract and so shouldn't be greatly considered, which I agree with, but Weapon ratings are concrete with specific rules for what they represent.  Anything Weapon: 3 or higher is the equivalent damage causing potential of an Assault Rifle, it would be ridiculous to ignore that in my opinion.

Also, so far as the Law Breaker stunt is concerned, it's worth noting that nowhere in its description does it suggest that it's meant as anything other than a penalty for incautious Wizards, and it's not unique in that respect.  In the Changling Template description it suggests the threat of a spontaneous new power NPCing a character and that this is a risk the player accepts when making the character.  Of course it should never be done unless it somehow improves the story (which is unlikely if it upsets the players greatly) but that is the way that the rules are constructed.

[toturi]

Guys, i'd just like to point out that the rules do say "within reason" meaning if a 20 shift spell is dropped on a zone as in intended to kill the monsters (who are much more resiliant than the humans) its going to crush everyone in the zone, if a 4 shift attack is like a hand granade a 20 shift attack is like a mini nuke, it isnt "within reason" for people to survive that. As long as the player is aware that their action will result in the lawbreaker stunt i'm in agreement that they should get it.

It would be within reason if the spell was intended to crush everyone in the zone. But it would not be so if the spell was intended to kill only the monsters. Thus it should be well "within reason" for other people in the zone to survive that.

Also, so far as the Law Breaker stunt is concerned, it's worth noting that nowhere in its description does it suggest that it's meant as anything other than a penalty for incautious Wizards, and it's not unique in that respect.  In the Changling Template description it suggests the threat of a spontaneous new power NPCing a character and that this is a risk the player accepts when making the character.

It is also worth noting that nowhere in its description does it suggest that it's meant as anything other than a consequence of a deliberate decision on the part of the player. In the Changling template, it is the same, the player has to decide for his character to make that Choice as well.

[zenten]

It is also worth noting that nowhere in its description does it suggest that it's meant as anything other than a consequence of a deliberate decision on the part of the player. In the Changling template, it is the same, the player has to decide for his character to make that Choice as well.

Compels are listed as valid causes for picking up powers for Changelings.

[sinker]

I saw a little bit ago on this thread the argument that stress is an abstract and so shouldn't be greatly considered, which I agree with, but Weapon ratings are concrete with specific rules for what they represent.  Anything Weapon: 3 or higher is the equivalent damage causing potential of an Assault Rifle, it would be ridiculous to ignore that in my opinion.

As was also mentioned earlier though, if someone doesn't take consequences then you have missed. Doesn't matter whether you're throwing a punch (weapon:0) or shooting them with an assault rifle (weapon:3) or even hitting them with a mack truck (weapon:5) if they don't take consequences then they are perfectly justified in saying that you missed them entirely.

Also, so far as the Law Breaker stunt is concerned, it's worth noting that nowhere in its description does it suggest that it's meant as anything other than a penalty for incautious Wizards, and it's not unique in that respect.  In the Changling Template description it suggests the threat of a spontaneous new power NPCing a character and that this is a risk the player accepts when making the character.  Of course it should never be done unless it somehow improves the story (which is unlikely if it upsets the players greatly) but that is the way that the rules are constructed.

Actually if you look at other places in the book it suggests that it could actually be used for advancement if a caster wants to go that way. It's like a specialization that is slightly more flexible in some ways and slightly less in others. Also if one is subtle in your aspect changes (adding the lawbreaker element but keeping them fundamentally similar) then one could continue to play said character in much the same way (relying more and more heavily on the lawbreaking of course) and your aspects would become powerful weapons when you chose to break the laws.

[Tedronai]

As was also mentioned earlier though, if someone doesn't take consequences then you have missed. Doesn't matter whether you're throwing a punch (weapon:0) or shooting them with an assault rifle (weapon:3) or even hitting them with a mack truck (weapon:5) if they don't take consequences then they are perfectly justified in saying that you missed them entirely.

And even if they DO take consequences from an attack with a mack truck, that consequence could be merely 'abraded hands' from their desperate dive out of the way.  The truck missed, but they still took stress and a minor consequence.
Heck, they could take the severe consequence 'shattered ankle and foot' and say that that's all that was in the truck's path.  They dove out of the way just a fraction of a second too late, or inches too short, and the truck impacted / drove over their foot.  They'll need medical attention to make sure it doesn't get infected, but by no means should they just up and die from that.

[devonapple]

Heck, they could take the severe consequence 'shattered ankle and foot' and say that that's all that was in the truck's path... They'll need medical attention to make sure it doesn't get infected, but by no means should they just up and die from that.

Unless they are in an episode of "Bones" and then there would totally be a bone-related disorder that could cause that. But guess what? The character's not in an episode of "Bones." And that is all right.

[DFJunkie]

This is one of those things that, as a GM, I've just had to live with.  After my PC wizard read the books and realized "hey, if I just specialize in Spirit Evocations I can always phrase things so that it's entirely reasonable for mortals to survive" I just gave up.  In my opinion it's better to play this one generously so the PCs don't feel constrained in their choice of elements.

[noclue]

Yeah, you can always phrase things so that it's reasonable that mortals survive, but then the GM just throws you a fate point to compel you to use potentially lethal force on an NPC that really deserves dying...He didn't die, but try telling that to the holier than thou wizard friend I'm stuck with...I mean it was only potentially life threatening.

[DFJunkie]

There's always the compel angle which I don't think anyone thinks is invalid. 

Of course, the PC could always hand you a fate point to obviously just knock the mortal out then, after combat ends, saunter over, kick in his skull, and ask for the fate point back.

[zenten]

This is one of those things that, as a GM, I've just had to live with.  After my PC wizard read the books and realized "hey, if I just specialize in Spirit Evocations I can always phrase things so that it's entirely reasonable for mortals to survive" I just gave up.  In my opinion it's better to play this one generously so the PCs don't feel constrained in their choice of elements.

I can't help but think a lot of the time those will either break other laws of magic, or some monsters might end up extra resistant to those types of attacks, depending on what you do.

[Tallyrand]

There's always the compel angle which I don't think anyone thinks is invalid. 

Of course, the PC could always hand you a fate point to obviously just knock the mortal out then, after combat ends, saunter over, kick in his skull, and ask for the fate point back.

The problem with the Compel method is that most Wizards run at 1 refresh, which means that your choice is either

1) Wait till they have no fate chips and say, "Congrats, you're an NPC now." or
2) Do it when they do have fate chips and say, "And that will be a one fate remain a PC tax."

Personally, as a player, I would much prefer there to be a rule so that I could at least have some control over whether I risk killing someone.