Considering some Evocation house rules

[KOFFEYKID]

I think it comes down to three camps here.

Camp A) We never risk accidentally killing our target. We narrate what happens to them so there is no "accidental death".

Camp B) We don't risk accidentally killing our target, as long as what we do is theoretically survivable.

Camp C) You better be really careful, accidental killing is a likely possibility.

Now, I happen to think Camp A is slightly wrong, why? Here is an example. Billy has the Gun O' Death. Its a magical artifact that guarantees death. Always. Now, according to Camp A, Billy shoots Mandy with the Gun O' Death "but he didn't mean to kill her." So she survives.

That is just a little silly, I think, I know, it is an extreme example, but it illustrates the point that some times, no matter what kind of narrative you apply to attack, somebody is gonna die.

Personally, I subscribe to Camp B. Accidental death shouldn't be something forced on the player as long as he doesn't go overboard. There is no surviving the Gun O' Death, so maybe Billy shouldn't use it all the time, maybe the Gun O' Severe and Painful Wounds would be more appropriate for him to use.

[Deadmanwalking]

I'm actually somewhere between camps B and C. I think that accidental death should at least potentially apply whenever the circumstances make surviving so unlikely as to break suspension of disbelief (ground zero of explosion, hit by Weapon: 6 blast of mystical flame, pure mortals shot in the head, etc.), and I even offer them an out by spending a Fate Point to make that 'really unlikely' occur. But that's not exactly the same criteria as 'theoretically survivable'. It needs to be reasonable for them to survive, not just possible for accidental death to not be a factor.

This actually hasn't come up yet in my game, interestingly enough.  Might have to do with lacking a Wizard and fighting mostly non-human things.

[EldritchFire]

I think it comes down to three camps here.

Camp A) We never risk accidentally killing our target. We narrate what happens to them so there is no "accidental death".

Camp B) We don't risk accidentally killing our target, as long as what we do is theoretically survivable.

Camp C) You better be really careful, accidental killing is a likely possibility.

Now, I happen to think Camp A is slightly wrong, why? Here is an example. Billy has the Gun O' Death. Its a magical artifact that guarantees death. Always. Now, according to Camp A, Billy shoots Mandy with the Gun O' Death "but he didn't mean to kill her." So she survives.

That is just a little silly, I think, I know, it is an extreme example, but it illustrates the point that some times, no matter what kind of narrative you apply to attack, somebody is gonna die.

Personally, I subscribe to Camp B. Accidental death shouldn't be something forced on the player as long as he doesn't go overboard. There is no surviving the Gun O' Death, so maybe Billy shouldn't use it all the time, maybe the Gun O' Severe and Painful Wounds would be more appropriate for him to use.

I believe that RAW is in Camp B.

YS203, "The outcome must remain within the realm of reason—very few people truly die from shame, so having someone die as a result of a duel of wits  is  unlikely,  but  having  him  embarrass himself and flee in disgrace is not unreasonable."

So could you narrate the Gun O' Death as non-lethal? Not likely.

However, "realm of reason" is up to the table to decide. At my table, Billy could use the Gun O' Death and not kill his target. How? Didn't shoot at the target. Made attacks against their composure track by using a BFG to intimidate, maybe shooting things nearby. Enough stress means taken out. Since it was against composure, it's within the realm of reason at my table that Mandy surrenders instead of getting shot to death.

Just my 2c.

-EF

[DFJunkie]

Personally I'm in Camp B, but only insofar as the winner cannot over state the terms of their victory.  If the winner decides that the loser does not die, the loser is alive, full stop.  If you, as the GM, want some control over the way your NPCs shuffle out of the scene (or off the mortal coil) you need to offer concessions, otherwise the outcome is up to the PC to dictate.  I realize that it's odd to think of death as a concession rather than a result of taken out, but that's really how the system works. 

[Ornithopter]

One important thing to keep in mind, I think, is that a successful attack doesn't necessarily mean you physically connected with the target at all.

Suppose I'm in a sword duel, and succeed on an attack with 4 shifts. My opponent takes a 4 stress hit. Did I break the skin? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps it was a near miss, or I hit him but it was just a graze, we can't say either way a priori.

Suppose I succeed again with 4 shifts. He takes a moderate or minor consequence, did I break the skin?  That's up to my opponent to decide. Perhaps he twisted his ankle trying to keep up with my fancy footwork on the uneven ground, or is merely extremely fatigued, we can't say.

Suppose I succeed again with 4 shifts, and the opponent is taken out, did I break the skin?  That's up to me to decide. Maybe I slit him open, or maybe I merely disarmed him, knocked him to the ground, and I have my blade at his throat.

At least, that's my interpretation of the mechanics. 

[Jeckel]

One important thing to keep in mind, I think, is that a successful attack doesn't necessarily mean you physically connected with the target at all. ...

I can't disagree with any of that. I think a lot of the problems come from specific kinds of attacks, such as fire. In those cases, many of us just find a lot less wiggle room for narrative loopholes. In the end, as others have said, it is going to come down to a decision by each group and any hard rule would just be ignored by those that disagree anyway. Personally, I just have my players declare what they are doing before they roll and apply whatever effects are appropriate based on their rp and rolls.

[offtopic]

2. As far as I understand it, the microwave gun works on the same basic principle as a microwave oven, you hit water and fat molecules with microwaves, exciting them, causing heat.  Now, in the gun, the heating is supposed to be limited to the outermost part of the skin, decreasing the amount of long term tissue damage.  Again, with sufficient control*, you should be able to use fire magic to create a similar effect.  Also, we may be more willing than the army to see some tissue damage, so long as it isn't lethal.

Yep, that is how microwaves, both the oven and the gun, work in concept. Assuming the high control, and assuming that we aren't taking about fire heating something else that then effects the target, fire would directly apply heat to the skin, even at a single candles strength, causing first, then second degree burns within seconds and third degree not long after that. The microwaves will start by putting energy into the fat and water of the body, the outer layer of skin in this example, and begin to heat it up. This process isn't slow, but without googling the exact numbers it isn't going to get to second degree burn stage as fast as the candle. The discomfort is going to come from the heating up, while fire starts off the bat applying heat. If you want to test it for yourself, grab two slices of bologne (or however that word is spelled :p). Put on in the microwave for about 5 seconds, then hold the other slice over a candle for about 5 seconds and note the difference.
[/offtopic]

[crusher_bob]

Here's my interim house rules for evocation:

1
By agreement, the PCs should keep their base (including foci) evocation power + control totals at (refresh +4) or lower. 

So, for example, in a submerged game, the limit would be a total of 14 (power + control).

This prevents the more extreme ends of evocation min-maxing.

2
Allow counterspells to be used defensively, like evocation blocks.

Advantage:
the counterspell is a power vs power contest, so if your opponent is using low power, high control attacks, you are better of using a counterspell against the attack, rather than a block.

Disadvantage:
defensive counterspells are not persistent, like evocation blocks are.

This rule is there to shut down jokers who make their evocation attacks very heavily control biased.  For example, a submerged character under rule 1 can still have a power 4, control 10 base attack.  But as you'd only need a power 4 counterspell to shut them down, that route isn't as attractive as it could be.

This also limits wizards to blocks of (refresh +4)/2  (example: power 7 at refresh 10), which will hopefully keep their defenses powerful but hittable too.

----------

This still lets wizards throw around very powerful attacks, but hopefully keeps them from getting too out of hand.

Another rule house rule I'm considering is to limit refinement to +1 power or control instead of +2.  You can go 'unbalance' by getting +2 via foci for the same point cost, but this makes better foci vs straight up power or control more of a trade off.

[Deadmanwalking]

I'd skip that final one. The first two on their own should be quite sufficient to curtail people, and Specialties being required to use the Skill Pyramid is already limit enough.

Personally, I'm pretty sure Counterspells can be used as you describe, at least potentially. I mean, all spells cost an offensive action (including Blocks) but if you saved yours you could totally counterspell like that.

Which leaves only the first as a real House Rule, and while I consider it unnecessary, is perfectly valid, and should keep the real min/maxers from having a field day.