Giving teeth to enforcement of The Laws

[Brand]

These seem like sort of "Surprise, you're dead" (or in this case your character has gone off the deep end) kind of situations, and I'm less a fan of those.

Everyone has their preferred methods of dealing with this matter, but for me the key with magic is that the caster has to truly believe in using lethal force.  Don't want to kill innocent mortals?  Keep your power in check if there are innocents by the fight.  The fireball you just threw at the bad guy with the intention of reducing him to ashes can also set the building on fire, possibly threatening innocents/mortals (especially if they're unconscious when the place starts to burn down).  The safest way for a caster to fight lethally is to always go for the knockout and just cut the target's throat with a knife afterward, if needed.  Any caster throwing spells and going for the kill every time is far more likely to run into unintended consequences, like when Harry went supernova at Bianca's party and burned all those people. 

I'm not saying such incidents as I described in my above post are normal, or have even popped up in my game yet, but the threat of killing someone accidentally is very real for wizards, especially those running around with just a single refresh.  I liken it to Knights of the Cross and not using one of the Swords for the wrong reasons.

[Tedronai]

I think the (potential) problem Sinker was concerned with was more one of 'by all accounts, everyone in the vicinity is a monster, so I'm going to torch them' being followed by 'oops, some of those monsters were actually innocents, disguised with magic as monsters...I guess my character is an NPC, now...I guess I should have opened my Sight on what seemed to be a horde of literally mind-crushingly hideous undead on the off-chance that one of them was actually a human with an item of power...'

[tymire]

[You might also want to consider feedback.  If you throw a lot of shifts, you are more likely not control all of it, and that can also be a way to accidentally break the 1st law.

Yep, backlash was mentioned in the first couple pages.  Main response was that it doesn't come up enough to make an effective deterrent.

Problem is that we rarely if ever see magic being used against mortals.  Can count the times on one hand...
Changes spoiler: 

(click to show/hide)

If it is so easy to knock folks out why did Eb suck the life out of hundreds of soldiers in the final battle?  Yes he doesn't get the law breaker for it due to his staff, however it definitely wasn't comfortable for him and he hates killing.  And really as they where mercs there was no reason for him to use lethal force (of course made the scene that much more epic but still).

The main point though has already been mentioned (a couple times if worded differently) and has to deal with play style.  When you leave all the power and decision in the players hands it reduces the "horror" factor and "suspense" (for the PLAYER not the CHARACTER) while you are gaming.  Guess it really comes down to if you want to tell an epic story or make things a bit more realistic.  Depending on the group both can be awesome experiences, even though I generally prefer the second.  However, it is harder and takes more effort and thought for everyone involved.   Reminds me of the first question I always ask when joining a Shadow Run game.  Where is the game going to fall on the pink Mohawk compared to the pure profession scale?

[Brand]

I think the (potential) problem Sinker was concerned with was more one of 'by all accounts, everyone in the vicinity is a monster, so I'm going to torch them' being followed by 'oops, some of those monsters were actually innocents, disguised with magic as monsters...I guess my character is an NPC, now...I guess I should have opened my Sight on what seemed to be a horde of literally mind-crushingly hideous undead on the off-chance that one of them was actually a human with an item of power...'

But that very scenario happens to be a very real danger for spellcasters willing to use deadly force or break any of the other Laws.  Molly did so, unintentionally, and by the game rules she only stayed a PC because she was young and still had plenty of Refresh to give.  We're talking about a game/system that lays out in detail how to make a character fall over dead while walking down the street, so suddenly losing one's character is something that, by the rules, is perfectly fine.  In your example, you would have already needed to fail a Lore/Alertness check to notice something different about one of the baddies, at least in my game.  

What it really comes down to is how the GM uses these things with regards to the party.  Are you trying to track down a homicidal warlock?  It's entirely within the rules for said warlock to acquire a few stray hairs or some of your blood, set up a ritual, sacrifice a wandering vagrant or two, and make you fall over dead while walking down the street.  That's within the rules, but most players would find that a rather unsatisfying (and unfair) way to lose a character.  It's the same with deadly magic.  There should always be a way (or two or three) for the caster to avoid killing unintentionally, but removing the threat of the Laws altogether just makes using magic even more powerful than it already is.

[Tallyrand]

But that very scenario happens to be a very real danger for spellcasters willing to use deadly force or break any of the other Laws.  Molly did so, unintentionally, and by the game rules she only stayed a PC because she was young and still had plenty of Refresh to give.  We're talking about a game/system that lays out in detail how to make a character fall over dead while walking down the street, so suddenly losing one's character is something that, by the rules, is perfectly fine.  In your example, you would have already needed to fail a Lore/Alertness check to notice something different about one of the baddies, at least in my game.  

While I agree that that sort of situation is completely within both the rules and the spirit of the game it is someone I would personally never do to my players for a very simple reason.  That sort of trap leads to the overly cautious player, which anyone who has played RPGs for a significant amount of time will probably have come across.  This is the guy who in a D&D game takes 20 on every 5 foot square searching for traps and create elaborate schemes to open dungeon doors from around the corner.  The guy who in a Shadowrun game kills every living thing he comes into contact with to ensure there are no witnesses and insists on spending the first two sessions of ever run going over hundreds of scenarios trying to plan the perfect entry.  I do as much as I can to encourage my players to be active and smart instead of choked by paranoia.

What it really comes down to is how the GM uses these things with regards to the party.  Are you trying to track down a homicidal warlock?  It's entirely within the rules for said warlock to acquire a few stray hairs or some of your blood, set up a ritual, sacrifice a wandering vagrant or two, and make you fall over dead while walking down the street.  That's within the rules, but most players would find that a rather unsatisfying (and unfair) way to lose a character.  It's the same with deadly magic.  There should always be a way (or two or three) for the caster to avoid killing unintentionally, but removing the threat of the Laws altogether just makes using magic even more powerful than it already is.

Fundamentally I agree, I just feel that there are boundaries you shouldn't cross in the interest of fun and fairness.  I've had characters in other games die in there sleep or what have you, and it never makes anyone but the most sadistic GM happy.

[Brand]

While I agree that that sort of situation is completely within both the rules and the spirit of the game it is someone I would personally never do to my players for a very simple reason.  That sort of trap leads to the overly cautious player, which anyone who has played RPGs for a significant amount of time will probably have come across.  This is the guy who in a D&D game takes 20 on every 5 foot square searching for traps and create elaborate schemes to open dungeon doors from around the corner.  The guy who in a Shadowrun game kills every living thing he comes into contact with to ensure there are no witnesses and insists on spending the first two sessions of ever run going over hundreds of scenarios trying to plan the perfect entry.  I do as much as I can to encourage my players to be active and smart instead of choked by paranoia.

That's why time limits are a great way to keep the party moving (maybe there's a princess that must be rescued in the castle before she is sacrificed at midnight, etc.).  To be honest, the people I game with usually have the opposite problem; they're more likely to rush into a situation, guns blazing, than spend hours plotting the perfect angle of attack.  And to use your D&D example, there's a reason players become paranoid about doors, walls, torch sconces, and everything else that can be found in dungeons.  If no traps were ever found, they'd happily rush through without a care... sort of like how a magic user without the threat of the Laws will have no problem using the "Flaming Fireball of Fiery Fatalness" rote again and again.

Fundamentally I agree, I just feel that there are boundaries you shouldn't cross in the interest of fun and fairness.  I've had characters in other games die in there sleep or what have you, and it never makes anyone but the most sadistic GM happy.

Absolutely.  I'd never just kill a character while walking down the street (or sleeping), which is why I mentioned few would find such ends to be fair.  It really does fall on the GM to find the right balance of making the game interesting and dangerous to the players to keep them involved and not going too far and "cheating" the players just for spite or one's own selfish pleasure.

[Bruce Coulson]

Not making a PC fall down dead from a murder spell has nothing to do with being fair.

It doesn't make a good story.  That's the only reason you need not to do something, even if it's totally realistic.

A lot of things happen in the books, and in our games, that are unrealistic.  But if they fit the genre and story, we accept them, because we all like good stories.  Only if the event is both unrealistic and doesn't add to the story do we object.

Whenever a Law is concerned, the first and most important question is; does it make a good story?  The second is, do the players want to tell that story?  Other concerns (such as realism) are important because they relate to suspension of disbelief and how well the story is being told, not because they need to be (or should be) adhered to.

If your group can accept gigantic fireballs incinerating entire buildings while the inhabitants manage to walk away with only superficial injuries, and everyone is having fun, go for it!  (Hey, it worked for the A-Team...)  If the reaction is 'that's impossible!', then you're looking for more realism in order to enjoy the story.  And that's fine too.

But story logic should always trump realism when there's a conflict.

[toturi]

The main point though has already been mentioned (a couple times if worded differently) and has to deal with play style.  When you leave all the power and decision in the players hands it reduces the "horror" factor and "suspense" (for the PLAYER not the CHARACTER) while you are gaming.  Guess it really comes down to if you want to tell an epic story or make things a bit more realistic.  Depending on the group both can be awesome experiences, even though I generally prefer the second.  However, it is harder and takes more effort and thought for everyone involved.   Reminds me of the first question I always ask when joining a Shadow Run game.  Where is the game going to fall on the pink Mohawk compared to the pure profession scale?

Why can't you have both within the same game? The people who want "horror" and "suspense" can have it for their characters and the people who don't don't. It is similar to having both pink mohawk and cold professional in SR.

[blackstaff67]

That's where the actual negotiating of concessions comes in, rather than the GM or player simply mandating the result, and the reasonableness clause, again

'Everyone survives with horrible burns' is not meaningfully less reasonable than 'everyone dies'


Nor is it just the GM

That said, any player being asked by the GM whether or not he's sure he wants to send a Weapon:6 attack their way might get a clue...and mebbe reduce it to a Weapon: 1 or 2 attack and say, "I'm cutting them off at teh knees."

[Tedronai]

Wow, responding to a comment on the first page of an 11 page thread...from 2 years ago...

If you'll explore the thread more fully, I'm sure you'll find a rebuttal to the point I believe you're trying to make (that high-weapon-value attacks should be expected to be lethal and that if a player wishes an attack not to be lethal they should voluntarily reduce their weapon rating and accept the resulting decreased chance of surviving the encounter), and if not, a perusal of other similar threads will most assuredly reveal such.

[narphoenix]

Not necessarily. I have a character, for example, who has a Weapon:7 sleep spell. Take a guess as to what the takeout result is. It depends on how the spell works. If you're using water magic to conjure icicles to impale, it's a lot more likely to kill them and Lawbreaker then if you're using water magic to biologically manipulate someone into being sleepy.

[Sanctaphrax]

Blah.

Immediately after I start the Law Talk thread to avoid enormous terrible arguments about the Laws, one of the most enormous and most terrible Law arguments ever rises from the grave.

[Hick Jr]

Well, he is blackstaff. Necromancy is something he's allowed to do.


Thread necromancy, on the other hand, especially for a two year old thread...

[Tedronai]

Thread necromancy doesn't so much concern me, if there's something new being added to the discussion.  It saves having to link back to the old thread for background information, or having to re-tread all the old ground in the new thread.
Reviving a thread for the sole purpose of bringing up a comment that had already been brought up (and argued to death) in the original thread and other threads around the same time, though?  That's just annoying.

[blackstaff67]

Please everyone, if I had known it would appear HERE, I would've never posted it at all.  My apologies for unintentionally violating the 5th(?) Law regarding this thread.  Blame it on fatigue, I posted it after coming off 2nd shift.