Giving teeth to enforcement of The Laws

[Tallyrand]

Guess one way you can resolve this is to see how much higher the attack/discipline roll was over the controll and defense rolls.  The greater difference the greater chance you can controll what happens.  Imo if you are taking backlash with a weapon 4+, the likelihood that you are not doing horrible things to them that can have unfavorable results is much more minute likely.

Yeah, over the last couple of days I've been thinking that the way I currently have it ruled with my group (giving NPCs an over-damage threshold after which they are likely killed) isn't idea for that very reason, a high Weapon attack controlled well is more likely to kill.  I have to find a way to make the ruling simple though so it's not a lot to keep track of, and I feel that Backlash is a little too rare to make that the barrier.

[nearchus]

YS 233: Fist paragraph after What Happens When You Break The Laws would be unnecessary if it was impossible to do so accidentally.

YS 236: The section after In your game makes no sense whatsoever if unintentionally killing is impossible.

YS 237: In the first paragraph after In your game

I've said this before, and I guess I'll say it again, though I'm not sure what's unclear about the rules concerning this: A *character* can accidentally kill another. A *player* cannot. So, when you as a player get a "taken out" result you can decide that your *character* accidentally (if they weren't meaning to) killed another if this is a reasonable outcome based on what happened. And if your character does something that would reasonably end with someone's death and you wish for them not to, you need to convince the rest of the table that your result is reasonable.

This means that your character can shoot someone several times and they might live. This is possible, and could be reasonable. It isn't reasonable if the player simply wants their character to avoid being a murderer (they probably shouldn't have shot the guy that many times), at least in my opinion. But it'd be reasonable if, for instance, your character *wanted* the person dead and shot them and left them for dead only to find out that they didn't die. There are other scenarios in which this would be reasonable, and I'll leave it up to your imagination. Also, you could have your character *accidentally* kill someone with a stray bullet, spell, or even a deliberate punch that happened to connect to a sensitive place (or hit someone already injured).

The point is that you, as the player, decide when your character makes this mistake. It's true that this puts a lot of power in the hands of the players, but if you don't trust the people you play with, I'd suggest discussing with them what type of game you'd like to be playing in.

[Tallyrand]

I've said this before, and I guess I'll say it again, though I'm not sure what's unclear about the rules concerning this: A *character* can accidentally kill another. A *player* cannot. So, when you as a player get a "taken out" result you can decide that your *character* accidentally (if they weren't meaning to) killed another if this is a reasonable outcome based on what happened. And if your character does something that would reasonably end with someone's death and you wish for them not to, you need to convince the rest of the table that your result is reasonable.

This means that your character can shoot someone several times and they might live. This is possible, and could be reasonable. It isn't reasonable if the player simply wants their character to avoid being a murderer (they probably shouldn't have shot the guy that many times), at least in my opinion. But it'd be reasonable if, for instance, your character *wanted* the person dead and shot them and left them for dead only to find out that they didn't die. There are other scenarios in which this would be reasonable, and I'll leave it up to your imagination. Also, you could have your character *accidentally* kill someone with a stray bullet, spell, or even a deliberate punch that happened to connect to a sensitive place (or hit someone already injured).

The point is that you, as the player, decide when your character makes this mistake. It's true that this puts a lot of power in the hands of the players, but if you don't trust the people you play with, I'd suggest discussing with them what type of game you'd like to be playing in.

The "In your game" sections are specifically speaking to and about players and not characters.  You can play it how you like, but your position isn't explicitly supported in the rules (and note, mine isn't either, I just feel that these sections make a clear indication of the designers intent).

[Ala Alba]

Alternately, use compels.

If a wizard uses a powerful, obviously dangerous spell on a mortal, the GM could always compel them to accidentally kill their target. Of course, the same is also true if you have a character with supernatural strength punching someone, or a guy with a anti-material rifle shooting at someone, etc.

[Tallyrand]

Alternately, use compels.

If a wizard uses a powerful, obviously dangerous spell on a mortal, the GM could always compel them to accidentally kill their target. Of course, the same is also true if you have a character with supernatural strength punching someone, or a guy with a anti-material rifle shooting at someone, etc.

That has come up before, and it's a way to do it, my problem with it though is that is seems to arbitrary.  Since when this comes into question it is generally a case of causing the Wizard to become an NPC the compel system leads to one of three scenarios.

1) The Wizard has no fate chips and therefor become an NPC because the GM is mean.

2) The Wizard has fate chips and unless he wants to retire the character has to give one up because the GM is a little mean.

3) The GM is not mean which means Wizards without Fate chips enjoy the benefit of being incapable of accidentally killing.


None of those are very satisfying to me.

[tymire]

If you are looking for a barrier make it simple.   Compare the attack roll-3 to base weapon damage, as you are pretty much combining a maneuver with an attack.  So say you have an attack of 9 you can easily control a weapon of 6, any more than that and likelihood of you killing them increases.

The problem is that players generally will NEVER choose to have negative long term/permanent effects hit their character.  Now making them uncomfortable in short term heck yea, but accidently breaking a law as written, is permanent and it isn’t an accident if the player doesn’t want it to be (which doesn't follow how the novels are read).

[Tallyrand]

If you are looking for a barrier make it simple.   Compare the attack roll-3 to base weapon damage, as you are pretty much combining a maneuver with an attack.  So say you have an attack of 9 you can easily control a weapon of 6, any more than that and likelihood of you killing them increases.[/quote}

I like that, I'm going to discuss a system like that with my group.

[Vine]

Is there no rational discussion between players and GMs?

I think if it is a problem you should talk it out with the players and express that lethal force spells will be expected to cause lethal hits.  The rules are all written with the basic principle that GMs and players are working together on the game.

The rules don't impose a penalty, as a GM, if you've discussed it and the player still doesn't reign things in or acknowledge the lethal consequences, maybe you should consider, and I know this will cause all sorts of trouble, imposing real consequences and ruling some of those hits lethal.

[nearchus]

The "In your game" sections are specifically speaking to and about players and not characters.  You can play it how you like, but your position isn't explicitly supported in the rules (and note, mine isn't either, I just feel that these sections make a clear indication of the designers intent).

It's true that those sections encourage the group to discuss what they'd find reasonable. I'm unclear what you think is inconsistent. There is simply no mechanic in the game for a player to have their character accidentally kill another character without the player wanting to, or the group finding a lethal result the *only* reasonable thing that could happen. These sections encourage the players and GM to decide, with each other, what reasonable consequences are, which is exceptionally good advice.

I understand that FATE is a different system than most, but I find it difficult to believe that the distinction between player and character choice is *that* unclear. Especially since this system relies on that distinction much more than most other game systems.

[Tedronai]

The problem is that players generally will NEVER choose to have negative long term/perment effects hit their character.  Now making them uncomfortable in short term heck yea, but accidently breaking a law as written, is perment and it isn’t an accident if the player doesn’t want it to be (which doesn't follow how the novels are read).

The books read as a group of mature players interested in exploring the concepts involved with having their characters skirt the borders of corruption, and, sometimes, crossing them.

[nearchus]

The problem is that players generally will NEVER choose to have negative long term/perment effects hit their character.  Now making them uncomfortable in short term heck yea, but accidently breaking a law as written, is perment and it isn’t an accident if the player doesn’t want it to be (which doesn't follow how the novels are read).

If this is true for your group then I'd suggest discussing with them why they're opposed to such effects. If they continue to refuse then you have a couple options. You can impose your own view of reasonable upon the group and hope they still have fun or you can find another game system that supports that view. There are *plenty* out there.

But if your players are really opposed to having their character ever accidentally kill someone because they want to blow up buildings with impunity and the system gives them the power to decide that their character didn't hurt anyone then this might not be the game for them. I guess if they're having fun, more power to them, but I certainly wouldn't be having a good time in that game.

[Ala Alba]

That has come up before, and it's a way to do it, my problem with it though is that is seems to arbitrary.  Since when this comes into question it is generally a case of causing the Wizard to become an NPC the compel system leads to one of three scenarios.

1) The Wizard has no fate chips and therefor become an NPC because the GM is mean.

2) The Wizard has fate chips and unless he wants to retire the character has to give one up because the GM is a little mean.

3) The GM is not mean which means Wizards without Fate chips enjoy the benefit of being incapable of accidentally killing.


None of those are very satisfying to me.

I find that conclusion shortsighted. If the GM informs the group of his intentions(i.e., to compel for death on every attack made with weapon ratings greater than 3 or something) and enforces this consistently, then more reasonable possibilities are:

1) All players who don't want to accidentally kill the wrong person will keep a fate point in reserve to ensure that they'll never suffer the consequences of accidentally killing their targets while still using full force.

2) The players start using attacks with lower weapon ratings whenever they're up against something they don't want to accidentally kill.

3) They do neither and accept the resulting consequences.

If the player of a wizard character decides to go ahead and use high weapon rating magical attacks on a mortal without having a fate point in reserve, they know what the consequences are and accept them. Alternately, if said player has fate points to spare, they can go ahead and use maximum force without worries, because they plan on narratively enforcing their desired outcome(by using a fate point).

It's that simple.

[sinker]

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

I can agree with you on this. However it seems like you're arguing that all weapon:4 and higher attacks are always lethal (For example your earlier argument about Agatha seems to be stating that all sleep spells higher than weapon:4 are lethal). If we're misunderstanding you I apologize. I'd just like to point out that I'm not the only one who appears to have this misconception.

The problem is that players generally will NEVER choose to have negative long term/permanent effects hit their character.  Now making them uncomfortable in short term heck yea, but accidently breaking a law as written, is permanent and it isn’t an accident if the player doesn’t want it to be (which doesn't follow how the novels are read).

Sounds like you need to meet some better players. As a player I personally have taken Lawbreaker voluntarily. It was dramatic and very fun for all.

The biggest reason I'm so passionate about this is due to the scenario brought up by the OP. I have seen this kind of thing in action. It almost always leads to schisms in gaming groups, and the death of friendships. Regardless of the circumstances if you are not honest and straightforward about this kind of issue it will become a problem.

"Surprise your character is dead" is never a good solution to any problem. It just leads to hurt feelings.

[Tallyrand]

It's true that those sections encourage the group to discuss what they'd find reasonable. I'm unclear what you think is inconsistent. There is simply no mechanic in the game for a player to have their character accidentally kill another character without the player wanting to, or the group finding a lethal result the *only* reasonable thing that could happen. These sections encourage the players and GM to decide, with each other, what reasonable consequences are, which is exceptionally good advice.

True, but when the "In your game' sections warn the players about the dangers accidentally killing that strongly suggests that it's possible for the players to accidentally kill.

I understand that FATE is a different system than most, but I find it difficult to believe that the distinction between player and character choice is *that* unclear. Especially since this system relies on that distinction much more than most other game systems.

Several people on the 'you can't accidentally kill in DFRPG' side keep coming at this as if your position was in some way factually supported by the rules.  It isn't, the rules are neutral on the subject as this is a very subjective game, my position is simply what I read as the intent of the games creators.  In addition I, and I belive this is why the creators would intend it this way, believe that providing the possibility for accidental killing makes the game more dynamic and dramatic and makes the story more interesting.  If any wizard can throw around almost any spell without fear of consequence then you don't really have Harry Dresden (who is constantly worried about the consequences of his actions), you have a a urban fantasy superhero who cockily blows up anything that gets into his way.  Tension and forcing characters (and players) to make hard decisions (Do I go all out and risk killing him or to I hold back and risk getting hit again?) are what good storytelling are made of so far as how I view it.

[Vine]

I grew up in AD&D.
My DMs favorite creature was the basilisk.  Oh goodness did we get many, many "surprise your character is dead" usually for no better reason than your character was walking in front.  Generally people had the maturity to accept it and make a new one.
Now I'm not advocating the completely arbitrary system we had then where you died from one bad roll, but I think most players of a reasonable maturity can handle a hit to their refresh and major in-character consequences from a habit of massive destruction in a world that is not exactly accepting of blowing the mickey out of things.