Giving teeth to enforcement of The Laws

[DFJunkie]

"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

Yes, but MedicineNet also lists Botulism before Dehydration as a potential cause of dry mouth.  Yes, it's alphabetical order, but those sites tend to be a little alarmist.

A fever is just as likely to be bone cancer, cancer, Dengue fever (not sure what it is, but it sounds bad), HIV, and something called NDM-1 which as it is to be the common cold.

I'm not saying you couldn't kill someone with heat stroke, I'm just saying it'll take a while.

[tymire]

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 

[bitterpill]

Tecnically the Laws have some seriously sharp teeth there called the wardens and they are ever so slightly badass.

[Drachasor]

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 

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.

[Tallyrand]

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.

Yes, she was trying to kill them which is why she used a Weapon: 3 or 4 equivalent of the spell rather than a Weapon: 0-2.  Agatha is a perfect example of how 'Sleep' taken to an extreme can be lethal.

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.

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.

[devonapple]

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.

From "Venture Brothers," 'Home Is Where the Hate Is':
Sgt. Hatred: "Wow. He's a delicate one, isn't he? [Rubber bullets] usually don't break the skin like that." [into a walkie talkie] "Dallas troop!"
Voice: "Sir?"
Sgt. Hatred: "Yeah, we got a bleeder here. Eighty-six the non-lethal. We're going full nerf on this one!"

[Tallyrand]

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.

I would rule that as a player holding back successes (i.e. going for a glancing blow) to hopefully garuntee he doesn't accidentally kill the guy.  In game terms the player knows this guy is a nameless NPC (or at least assumes so) and that he's swinging with a Weapon: 4 attack so he tells the GM "I'm going for a Glancing Blow here, I figure these Thugs only have an Athletics and Fists of 2 so no matter what I roll I'm only going to take 2 successes and just hope he doesn't dodge."

[Tallyrand]

That's just a semantic quibble.  People are really meaning Heat Exhaustion here.

Yes but you don't create 'Heat Exhaustion" without hitting the guy with heat, and the Weapon value of an attack represents the severity of that heat.

[Tallyrand]

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.

Drugging someone is MUCH better represented in this game by Maneuvers than by Attacks.

[Steppenwolf]

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.

[Tallyrand]

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.

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.


PS: Sorry about the flurry of posts, I made my challenge just before going to bed and wanted to give each post it's own defense.

[devonapple]

With one-on-one attacks, it feels easier to me that a player can justify glancing blows and the like.

However, Zone-Wide damage effects are - by their nature - indiscriminate attacks, and the game charges fewer shifts for them than for a Spray Attack, which allows a spellcaster to be much more surgical, which is why it requires a great deal of shifts to perform effectively and safely in a crowded Zone.

I feel the spirit of the discussion is whether or not to reward high-shift Zone-Wide damage effects - which are cheap for a reason - with non-lethality, when common sense indicates that the more plausible result is a lot of suffering and death.

Ultimately, it depends on whether you are playing "Dresden Files" or "G.I. Joe."

[sinker]

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.

[Tallyrand]

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'm going to take this post in two parts.

First I empathize and agree in regards to your argument that Dresden is an abstract system but I don't feel that invalidates my arguement for two reasons.  Firstly the Weapon rating system is pretty much the least abstracted part of the rules. They could have said simply that melee weapons dependent on quality do between 1 and 3 extra stress and guns to between 2 and 5 with supernatural weapons potentially doing even more but instead they made a table to break down one handed, two handed etc and I have to assume they did so for a reason.  Secondly it is made clear in the book that it is possible for a wizard to accidentally break a law of magic and that the First law is among the easier to accidentally break.  I read that to mean that it isn't always the players choice, and if that's the case, as a player, I would prefer to know there is a hard line that I can avoid stepping over, rather than simply leaving it to the whims of the GM.

In the second half of your post every example you list is better represented, with either Maneuvers or attacks on something other than the Physical stress track so yes, you can do all those things without risking killing someone, but they aren't really relevant to the overall discussion.

I'm not saying that all Weapon: 4 attacks are the same, I'm simply saying that all of them are potentially lethal.

[ironpoet]

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 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)