the laws of magic

[Troy]

Potestas, what aspect of the Laws of Magic do like? What would you be willing to keep in your game?

I will agree with some of the other posters and say that without the laws as-is... the game would feel different tha  the Dresdenverse we know and love.

One idea to grease the Laws would be to create penalties for I fractions other than death. Perhaps create a 3 strikes rule for the Laws or something.

[Taran]

I use sponsored debt for the laws of magic

[Mr. Death]

Something to bear in mind is that the death sentence isn't instant. It's not like if you whack a guy with magic a Warden is going to be waiting at your front door.

Like any other kind of cop, they have to find out about it first, and investigate. If it's a single offense and nobody reports you, you could get away with it.

But the thing is, breaking the laws does fundamentally affect who and what you are. It's not just about whether or not the Wardens show up, WOJ is that the force of nature known as magic genuinely does affect you depending on how you use it, and that's what's reflected both in the aspect change and in the refresh cost.

This is a series and world where breaking the laws of magic has a direct and tangible consequence, and removing the refresh cost runs counter to that. It's supposed to be a penalty. You might as well remove the limit on consequences because you don't want to play a game where getting injured makes it harder to do things.

[potestas]

Potestas, what aspect of the Laws of Magic do like? What would you be willing to keep in your game?

I will agree with some of the other posters and say that without the laws as-is... the game would feel different tha  the Dresdenverse we know and love.

One idea to grease the Laws would be to create penalties for I fractions other than death. Perhaps create a 3 strikes rule for the Laws or something.

I think the entire idea is wizard killing fun. So as far as this conversation goes, i am simply making them laws like mortal laws. given suffient reason or if no one is around to tell they can be violated. I am also going to assume higher up wizards break them with impunity enforcing them simply to ensure their own power. The blackstaff breaks them with no ill effects, everyone says its the staff but there is no ingame or inbook verification of this. Moreover even if you only allow one wizard to activily defend all wizards your order would be doomed long before it reached the 20th century. So for my game they are do as I say not as I do. the older wizards are strong enough that no one will question what they do unless they go overboard. Kind of like how ancient mi thought Harry didnt have the wisdom to be a member. he didnt know enough when to not break the laws. thats how I am going ot play it anyway. more fun that way

[Hick Jr]

This is a series and world where breaking the laws of magic has a direct and tangible consequence, and removing the refresh cost runs counter to that. It's supposed to be a penalty. You might as well remove the limit on consequences because you don't want to play a game where getting injured makes it harder to do things.

This is the only thing I'm disagreeing with you about. I kind of despise the Lawbreaker power. Being forced to change one of your Aspects is an awesome way to represent having broken a Law: it changes a fundamental part of your character, you're pushed further down the dark path you started on (compels), you get hounded by wardens (compels), and you can be better at breaking that specific Law (Invokes, occasionally utilizing Taran's Sponsor Debt method). If a player in my game were to deliberately break a Law, I would make them change an Aspect, but I definitely wouldn't force them to take the Power itself, because losing a single refresh on a wizard is devastating and usually makes the character an NPC. The gamebook posits that you "loan" him the Refresh, forcing the character to take the power for real at the next Major Milestone, but that's stopgap at best. Like I said before- I think the Power represents a character like Grevane, someone who has embraced their breaking of that Law and does so again and again, eagerly and willingly.

There's also the issue of accidental Lawbreaking and being forced to then take the power by jerk GM's. I was in a game where a wizard's apprentice used a Weapon:6, fire-element "pain-ray" (based on this) spell to take down a couple of pure mortal gunmen. Except the GM compelled the Scene aspect AFLAME or something like that to force us to get the hell out of dodge, leaving the gunmen. Afterwards, he asked her what Power she was going to replace with First Lawbreaker, saying that she had used an immense Weapon rating on pure mortals, crippling them, and subsequently left them to die. She was furious, and the game fell apart afterwards because we couldn't agree on how we should handle what happened.

I think the entire idea is wizard killing fun. So as far as this conversation goes, i am simply making them laws like mortal laws. given suffient reason or if no one is around to tell they can be violated. I am also going to assume higher up wizards break them with impunity enforcing them simply to ensure their own power. The blackstaff breaks them with no ill effects, everyone says its the staff but there is no ingame or inbook verification of this. Moreover even if you only allow one wizard to activily defend all wizards your order would be doomed long before it reached the 20th century. So for my game they are do as I say not as I do. the older wizards are strong enough that no one will question what they do unless they go overboard. Kind of like how ancient mi thought Harry didnt have the wisdom to be a member. he didnt know enough when to not break the laws. thats how I am going ot play it anyway. more fun that way

I hope you understand that in this theoretical game, not playing a wizard would be moronic. Wizards are already far and away the most powerful character types by virtue of Thaumaturgy/Crafting alone. Removing the already easily-circumvented restrictions upon them will make them even more hilariously broken. If the First Law is gone, good luck with literally any mortal holding up for more than one exchange in combat with a wizard. Third and Fourth Laws gone means that any mystery immediately becomes a joke. Fifth Law means mega-minions, and even more devaluation of the murder mystery. I can't even imagine what a wizard with no Law restrictions would do to game balance.

[Mr. Death]

This is the only thing I'm disagreeing with you about. I kind of despise the Lawbreaker power. Being forced to change one of your Aspects is an awesome way to represent having broken a Law: it changes a fundamental part of your character, you're pushed further down the dark path you started on (compels), you get hounded by wardens (compels), and you can be better at breaking that specific Law (Invokes, occasionally utilizing Taran's Sponsor Debt method). If a player in my game were to deliberately break a Law, I would make them change an Aspect, but I definitely wouldn't force them to take the Power itself, because losing a single refresh on a wizard is devastating and usually makes the character an NPC. The gamebook posits that you "loan" him the Refresh, forcing the character to take the power for real at the next Major Milestone, but that's stopgap at best. Like I said before- I think the Power represents a character like Grevane, someone who has embraced their breaking of that Law and does so again and again, eagerly and willingly.

There's also the issue of accidental Lawbreaking and being forced to then take the power by jerk GM's. I was in a game where a wizard's apprentice used a Weapon:6, fire-element "pain-ray" (based on this) spell to take down a couple of pure mortal gunmen. Except the GM compelled the Scene aspect AFLAME or something like that to force us to get the hell out of dodge, leaving the gunmen. Afterwards, he asked her what Power she was going to replace with First Lawbreaker, saying that she had used an immense Weapon rating on pure mortals, crippling them, and subsequently left them to die. She was furious, and the game fell apart afterwards because we couldn't agree on how we should handle what happened.

That has more to do, as you said, with the GM being a jerk than a failing of the power.

A power, any power, should be taken with the players' consent and discussion between them and GM. There is no reason that Lawbreaker should be any different, especially given how accidental death should be impossible in this game.

The power, like any other power, is about how the player wants to take the character. It's not something a GM should spring on a player. I mean, I'm assuming players read the rulebook and powers before they start playing, right? And they're aware of the consequences of killing with magic, right?

So nobody should be surprised when Lawbreaker comes up. If a player doesn't want to deal with a refresh cost, they shouldn't go killing people with magic.

The game, the whole setting, is one where actions have consequences, after all.

The refresh cost is the point. Using black magic changes you and reduces the free will you have by making it harder to resist using that power again. Keep using it, and it does turn you into a monster -- i.e., it removes your free will, vis a vis refresh. It produces an indelible stain that never goes away, while you can change aspects and can avoid taking debt and compels. A power isn't so easily discarded.

Also, I know that a lot of wizard PCs are going to go right up to 1-refresh...but a lot of them won't. I've played with several who kept their refresh rates a little lower so that they could have that cushion when their rolls needed a boost. Not everyone is going to power-game their way to use up all their refresh in one go.

[Sanctaphrax]

Honestly not sure what you guys are talking about. The Laws aren't a balancing factor for wizards. Being immune to them has no Refresh cost, after all.

If you remove the First Law, a fight between a mortal and a wizard will go almost exactly the same way it would go with it. The take-out narration might be a little different, but wizards who want to kill can do so through mundane means and wizards who don't want to kill can just narrate their targets surviving.

Anyway, the idea that the Refresh loss represents a slide into monstrous-ness is unconvincing to me because Refinement inflicts the exact same Refresh loss. So does knowing martial arts (Martial Artist) or having a lot of toys (Lush Lifestyle), for that matter. If your issue with using Aspects is that they're too easy to change, just say that they can't be.

[potestas]

This is the only thing I'm disagreeing with you about. I kind of despise the Lawbreaker power. Being forced to change one of your Aspects is an awesome way to represent having broken a Law: it changes a fundamental part of your character, you're pushed further down the dark path you started on (compels), you get hounded by wardens (compels), and you can be better at breaking that specific Law (Invokes, occasionally utilizing Taran's Sponsor Debt method). If a player in my game were to deliberately break a Law, I would make them change an Aspect, but I definitely wouldn't force them to take the Power itself, because losing a single refresh on a wizard is devastating and usually makes the character an NPC. The gamebook posits that you "loan" him the Refresh, forcing the character to take the power for real at the next Major Milestone, but that's stopgap at best. Like I said before- I think the Power represents a character like Grevane, someone who has embraced their breaking of that Law and does so again and again, eagerly and willingly.

There's also the issue of accidental Lawbreaking and being forced to then take the power by jerk GM's. I was in a game where a wizard's apprentice used a Weapon:6, fire-element "pain-ray" (based on this) spell to take down a couple of pure mortal gunmen. Except the GM compelled the Scene aspect AFLAME or something like that to force us to get the hell out of dodge, leaving the gunmen. Afterwards, he asked her what Power she was going to replace with First Lawbreaker, saying that she had used an immense Weapon rating on pure mortals, crippling them, and subsequently left them to die. She was furious, and the game fell apart afterwards because we couldn't agree on how we should handle what happened.


I hope you understand that in this theoretical game, not playing a wizard would be moronic. Wizards are already far and away the most powerful character types by virtue of Thaumaturgy/Crafting alone. Removing the already easily-circumvented restrictions upon them will make them even more hilariously broken. If the First Law is gone, good luck with literally any mortal holding up for more than one exchange in combat with a wizard. Third and Fourth Laws gone means that any mystery immediately becomes a joke. Fifth Law means mega-minions, and even more devaluation of the murder mystery. I can't even imagine what a wizard with no Law restrictions would do to game balance.

I am game

for me wizards are supposed to be laws unto themelves, held in check by their own morality, or more powerful wizards and only if said wizard discovers what the wizard is doing. Being able to pull the answer out of a mortal mind is just as much investigation as looking for clues, you still have to find the right mortal and if another wizard or never never critter is involved getting by his spells will prove adventure enough. I want them to feel empowered, not constricted. Plus they wont know right away that the laws aren't really real, they will believe what all young wizards believe. Plus its still against the law to violate them they just have to do it without getting caugt or if caught be strong enough that the senior council doesnt want to waste resources (read wardens) enforcing the law.

Ever play a game called ars magica. excellent  game all about wizards no laws per se. very fun id love a way to make it a modern game any who thats my take i was just hoping others had something apparently not.

[Mr. Death]

Honestly not sure what you guys are talking about. The Laws aren't a balancing factor for wizards. Being immune to them has no Refresh cost, after all.

If you remove the First Law, a fight between a mortal and a wizard will go almost exactly the same way it would go with it. The take-out narration might be a little different, but wizards who want to kill can do so through mundane means and wizards who don't want to kill can just narrate their targets surviving.

Well, with the First Law in place, you can compel the wizard along the lines of, "If you hit him with X power in an Evocation and take him out, that will kill him," and that will certainly change things. Or compelling him not to use any attacking magic. That seems to happen to Harry all the time.

Anyway, the idea that the Refresh loss represents a slide into monstrous-ness is unconvincing to me because Refinement inflicts the exact same Refresh loss. So does knowing martial arts (Martial Artist) or having a lot of toys (Lush Lifestyle), for that matter. If your issue with using Aspects is that they're too easy to change, just say that they can't be.

Perhaps monstrous wasn't the right word, but all those things do affect a person's nature and how they'll err toward that nature more and more the more they focus on it. It reinforces that this person identifies and is these traits, and finds it harder to resist them (i.e., they have less ability to buy out of compels).

Put it this way -- there came a point where Bruce Lee really wasn't going to go into accounting, no matter how much he might have wanted to -- after a certain point, he is martial artist, and he doesn't have the fate points left to buy out of compels. Once you've sunk years into an accounting degree, you're not going to go play professional football. Life choices of any kind change who and what you are, and limit the choices you have going forward. The Laws of Magic are the same way.

for me wizards are supposed to be laws unto themelves, held in check by their own morality, or more powerful wizards and only if said wizard discovers what the wizard is doing. Being able to pull the answer out of a mortal mind is just as much investigation as looking for clues, you still have to find the right mortal and if another wizard or never never critter is involved getting by his spells will prove adventure enough. I want them to feel empowered, not constricted. Plus they wont know right away that the laws aren't really real, they will believe what all young wizards believe. Plus its still against the law to violate them they just have to do it without getting caugt or if caught be strong enough that the senior council doesnt want to waste resources (read wardens) enforcing the law.

Then honestly this may not be the setting for you. This really isn't a "Wizards can do anything they can get away with" setting. Removing the Laws of Magic kind of means you're not playing in the Dresden universe anymore.

[potestas]

your probably right but ill keep trying. I just love the books. I just wish he would have used a different game system. I don't like the game system at all.

[blackstaff67]

I think the Evil Hat people approached him to do the series; JB had little to do with it.  Pretty much they just grabbed the ball and ran with it is my understanding of it.  Still much better than West End's D6 system I was trying to modify to run The Dresden Files.

[bobjob]

I'm a huge D6 fan and I think it's versatile enough to work with pretty much any setting. I'd have to take a look at my tweaked Magic rules from D6 Fantasy to see if there is a way to emulate DF magic.

[Wordmaker]

Our current campaign was formed around the idea that the group was on the run because a couple of them had been falsely accused of breaking the First Law. It's taken them months of work and literally saving the world for the Council to even consider a re-trial, and we've been loving it.

I do agree, though, losing a point of refresh on the Lawbreaker stunt sucks.

Our group keeps two "versions" of the Laws of Magic. First, there's what the Wardens think. To them, even if you accidentially break a Law, or do so indirectly (One of the group is an artificer, he can make magic items. Someone used a magic weapon he'd made to kill someone, so the Wardens found him guilty of breaking the First Law), they'll come for you. But you don't have to take the Lawbreaker stunt. This way we can narrate "Taken Out" results with accidental death if we want, and the character doesn't suffer mechanically.

Then there's the Laws as the universe itself sees them. In this case, if the character willingly chooses to break one of the Laws (like deciding they want to set fire to a guy's head until it melts), then they take the stunt.

It's something you really want to agree ahead of time with your group.

[Troy]

On the Fate Google Plus community there was a poster who considered the idea of Conditions being used in a sword and sorcery game and that got me thinking about the Laws of Magic. Conditions are like Consequences, but they are predetermined by the GM and you're able to say to the players, "If you do this... you're going to suffer this Moderate Condition..."

I was thinking that it might be a solution to the -1 Refresh issue of the Lawbreaker Stunt if there was some sort of stress track that mortal practitioners have... maybe not even a stress track, but maybe just Conditions Slots that the person could use to represent the taint or corruption a person might suffer from breaking and abusing the Laws of Magic. You'd have your Mild, Moderate, Severe, and Extreme Conditions... Extreme representing the irredeemable black magic warlock type.

I'm not sure how you would adjudicate what actions dictate the severity of the conditions. Maybe ... accidentally breaking a law of magic warrants a mild condition, breaking a law of magic in self-defense gets you a moderate condition, doing it on purpose gets the severe condition, and doing it repeatedly gets you the extreme version. And as a condition is sticks to your character as an aspect for a short time, which the GM can compel while it's present in order to represent that temptation/addiction to power that breaking the laws carries.

[solbergb]

In the dresdenverse there are a lot of powers keen on making sure "Free Will of Mortals" or "The Mortal Ability to Choose" is enforced. 

The in-game mechanical effect of first (killing), second (no transforming), fourth (no enthralling) are likely mechanically enforced by the Power that entities like angels, the Knights, etc serve, and the extra power is a form of sponsored push by the kinds of folks who power the Denarians, at least two of the vampire courts and ghouls.  The 5th is probably also linked to this, as necromancy (as opposed to ectomancy) seems to deal with actual souls of mortals, not just a "footprint" left behind by their life, or just their bodies.  Although some necromancy doesn't seem to fall afoul of this (purely animating dead bodies) this would indicate why it is NOT a violation to animate the body of something that never had a soul.

The other 3 laws don't strictly apply to mortals with souls, but seem to apply to everything.

The events in Cold Days would indicate that at least one extremely powerful group of entities is interested in enforcing the 7th law (don't even THINK about dealing with outsiders).  Blame the mechanical effects of that on....read the book.  The slippery slope aspects of it fall under the opposition.

I'm less clear on the 3rd (reading minds),  and 6th (time).  My guess is actually it's the White Council who is enforcing these, for reasons of their own, as the original Merlin clearly did muck with Time, and the Gatekeeper and Blackstaff are exceptions in various ways, plus all Wizards get a bit of prophecy as they age.   The slippery slope side may have roots more in just an addiction wizards tend to get to the behavior (invading privacy or trying to fix mistakes in time with more meddling).

The political side (Wardens show up etc) is much more legalistic, and usually the error is on the side of "caution" although there is clearly a procedure that includes a soulgaze to help determine if the person is too far gone to be saved.

If I was going to change the mechanical behavior (get a boost when being bad, at the cost of becoming closer to an NPC or actually becoming one) I'd want to be damn sure I knew what the reasons for the laws were in my universe, and the purpose they serve to the cosmology.  Above are my guesses, and it would inform whether or not a person had to take a lawbreaker power, or whether they'd get by with a consequence or aspect change on a borderline violation...or whether much to their surprise nothing happens aside from any remorse they might naturally have for such an act.