Does Sleep Magic Break Any Laws of Magic?

[BumblingBear]

Part of the problem may be our interpretation of "an enemy".

I am talking about humans.

Supernatural creatures - in my game - will all have some sort of catch to make them fall asleep.  In fact, it would be far easier for a group to take them out.

Humans are very, very frail, though.

What if your PC carried chloroform around and did a sneak attack to apply the aspect "Chloroform'd"?

Making the NPC continue fighting after that would make no sense whatsoever.

[Bruce Coulson]

It all depends on what makes a good story.

Carrying around chloroform isn't illegal, exactly; but expect a LOT of questions by the local police if you're caight.  Also, chloroform leaves traces and burns in high concentrations, so it's pretty easy to identify and trace.

Personally, I don't think it makes for a very dramatic story to let the PCs (or NPCs) simply gas their opposition into slumber.

[BumblingBear]

It all depends on what makes a good story.

Carrying around chloroform isn't illegal, exactly; but expect a LOT of questions by the local police if you're caight.  Also, chloroform leaves traces and burns in high concentrations, so it's pretty easy to identify and trace.

Personally, I don't think it makes for a very dramatic story to let the PCs (or NPCs) simply gas their opposition into slumber.

It does if they do it to one opponent and it works only to try it on another and discover a RCV with a flesh mask.... 

Gotta think outside the box.

I'm all for RAW and crunchy, but I just can't bring myself to abandon common sense.

[devonapple]

Personally, I don't think it makes for a very dramatic story to let the PCs (or NPCs) simply gas their opposition into slumber.

Using chloroform on an opponent could be the most elegant way to accomplish a particular goal, but it probably shouldn't become a gaming group's modus operandi. It's all a part of the game economy, part of the plot. We see it in movies and books, so it's natural to want to replicate it.

The question - going back to the rules: is this a Concession, a Taken Out, or simply the consequences of a Compel?

Concession isn't necessarily the answer, because what if the victim (I imagine a PC in this case) opts to not accept it?
Taken Out implies that the chloroform-user could have opted to kill the target character.
Compel sounds close, but it seems pretty strong even for a Compel.

[BumblingBear]

Using chloroform on an opponent could be the most elegant way to accomplish a particular goal, but it probably shouldn't become a gaming group's modus operandi. It's all a part of the game economy, part of the plot. We see it in movies and books, so it's natural to want to replicate it.

The question - going back to the rules: is this a Concession, a Taken Out, or simply the consequences of a Compel?

Concession isn't necessarily the answer, because what if the victim (I imagine a PC in this case) opts to not accept it?
Taken Out implies that the chloroform-user could have opted to kill the target character.
Compel sounds close, but it seems pretty strong even for a Compel.

Those were exactly my thoughts on the matter.

A maneuver+tag for effect seems most appropriate, and if the victim pays one fate point to resist it, they will still be out, but get one exchange in which to act.

[Sanctaphrax]

No way.

The same logic that lets you automatically take someone out with chloroform would let you automatically take someone out with a gun. After all, it's quite unrealistic to survive a bullet to the forehead. In fact, it's probably more unrealistic than remaining concious with chloroform over your mouth.

Personally, I'd straight-up laugh at a player who tried to knock someone out with a maneuver. If it can knock someone out, it's an attack. Because being knocked out is a form of being taken out.

Not all NPCs have Fate Points. Even really powerful ones don't always have them. So this would end a lot of interesting fights too easily.

Also, it shouldn't be that easy to drain someone's FP.

If it strains your suspension of disbelief to have people remain standing with a a CHLOROFORMED aspect, then don't allow it as a maneuver. Would you let someone create a DECAPITATED aspect with a Weapons maneuver?

[devonapple]

It's taken me awhile, but I'm rediscovering the treads of my original conclusion on this matter.

Chloroforming heroes: plot-level action. Fate Point(s) should probably be awarded.
Chloroforming mooks: relatively easy, by comparison, but still not so easy.

Imagine a scene in a movie.
In one take, the spy sneaks up behind the guard, performs the Maneuver, and the guard goes down.
In another take, the spy sneaks up behind the guard, performs the Maneuver, but fails. The guard fights back. The spy has to break his neck or something.

Is the second example a failed Maneuver? Or is the first example a Concession? Because compared to the second example, it sounds like one.

In the third take, the spy approaches a tougher guard. The guard will probably take a Consequence. The spy may not be able to cause enough Stress to overcome him just with a successful Fists attack (armed with choloroform). So the spy sets up the Ambush as before, and takes the time to set up some other Aspects: Well-Timed; Distraction; Drawing a Bead. Then when the ambush happens, the spy can plausibly Take Out the tougher guard with the attack.

[BumblingBear]

No way.

The same logic that lets you automatically take someone out with chloroform would let you automatically take someone out with a gun. After all, it's quite unrealistic to survive a bullet to the forehead. In fact, it's probably more unrealistic than remaining concious with chloroform over your mouth.

That's comparing apples and oranges.  You don't have to be within arms distance, undetected, and holding a delivery system for a powerful drug to shoot someone.

That said, if a PC wanted to shoot someone in the head and did a similar set up for the "Chloroformed" aspect, I would allow it.

Why?  Because with any sort of decent guns roll a shot would surpass a standard vanilla mortal's stress track and they'd be taken out anyway.

Personally, I'd straight-up laugh at a player who tried to knock someone out with a maneuver. If it can knock someone out, it's an attack. Because being knocked out is a form of being taken out.

We can agree to disagree I suppose.  But keep in mind that I am not talking about knocking out a BCV.  I'm talking about knocking out a regular person.  Hell, it's not that hard to do.  I can do it in RL - why the hell can't my souped up, supernaturally powered PCs do it?

Not all NPCs have Fate Points. Even really powerful ones don't always have them. So this would end a lot of interesting fights too easily.

I keep an NPC fate point pile in the middle of the table.

If the PCs are trying to drug and then kidnap a crime boss (for instance), he would definitely use a fate point to cry out or throw something to alert his goons before he passes out.

Also, it shouldn't be that easy to drain someone's FP.

Who said anything about easy?  To sneak into a hideout, get a badguy alone and then chloroform him is not exactly buying a DVD at Best Buy.

Plus, this attack would obviously be seen in a public venue and the PC who did it would be a wanted criminal.

I am not understanding why everyone keeps calling this attack "easy".

It's far easier to just snipe someone from 400 yards away.  With enough NGM and a high guns skill, that's a one shot kill on almost anything.  I can do that in RL.

Sneaking into a bad guy's hideout to drug him, slit his throat, and then extricate myself without being killed - that I CAN'T do.

So where is the level of difficulty less for a chloroform attack?

If it strains your suspension of disbelief to have people remain standing with a a CHLOROFORMED aspect, then don't allow it as a maneuver.

Or, since it's my game and my word is law, I DO allow it, and I let the PC tag the aspect for effect.

Would you let someone create a DECAPITATED aspect with a Weapons maneuver?

Yes I would.  A swordsman with a weapons skill of 4+ with anything larger than a hunting knife would get that ability in my game... VS a mook regular human.

Against a fairie warrior - hell no.

I think one has to look at what is allowed and what is not through a lens of what is thematically appropriate.

If a 10 refresh badass wants to kill a 14 year old babysitter, it should not take 3 rounds due to bad rolls.  That is just silly.

[Sanctaphrax]

So, you're allowed to kill someone with a maneuver as long as you could have done it with an attack?

Then why not just use an attack?

Bad rolls will essentially never shut down a Submerged combat character's attacks on a random schmuck. And if they would, then they could do the same to maneuvers.

[devonapple]

So, you're allowed to kill someone with a maneuver as long as you could have done it with an attack?

Then why not just use an attack?

I don't know that this is an accurate assessment of the issue. Chloroform is supposed to be a non-lethal option.

The question is: do we contrive a way for someone with Choloroform to:
A) subdue someone non-lethally with a Maneuver?
B) entice a Concession with the obvious use of non-lethal force?
C) Take Out the target using the existing rules, which favors doing this to low-power ordinary mortals and mooks? (ETA: with the commensurate assembly of Maneuvers to tag for the takedown, more of which will be required to take out a higher-level or more plot-important target)

[Sanctaphrax]

I'd say C.

Take-outs don't have to be lethal.

[BumblingBear]

So, you're allowed to kill someone with a maneuver as long as you could have done it with an attack?

Then why not just use an attack?

Bad rolls will essentially never shut down a Submerged combat character's attacks on a random schmuck. And if they would, then they could do the same to maneuvers.

I think the maneuvers can be more satisfying for the player.

If the result will be the same either way, why not let the player choose /how/ the result comes about?

Plus, some of my players are not good at coming up with narration or describing a death.

If an enemy is taken out, they have to describe what happens.

If an enemy has an aspect placed on them and invokes it for effect, it is my job as GM to describe what happens.

At least one of my players would rather I describe what happens because she can't come up with anything on the spot like that.

[devonapple]

I just thought of something:

Could we just use the Venomous rules and tie it into requiring a successful Grapple check?
What about someone who brazenly pulls the "does this smell like chloroform to you?" maneuver?

[BumblingBear]

I just thought of something:

Could we just use the Venomous rules and tie it into requiring a successful Grapple check?
What about someone who brazenly pulls the "does this smell like chloroform to you?" maneuver?

Meh... I think that might work, but it's just too crunchy and clunky for me.

If you slap a wet towel of chloroform over someone's face, they're out.  Period. 

If it were an attack on a supernatural monster (that chloroform worked on), then I think a weapon rating for the grapple from the chloroform and a grapple contest would be appropriate.

[Becq]

I'm not sure how I feel about the maneuver discussion above.  On the one hand, having a system to reflect things like chloroform has utility.  On the other hand, such mechanics also see risky to the realm of 'fun' in the context of the game.

Just a small nit-pick, though: to the extent that such maneuvers are allowed to knock people out of a fight, it should be noted that they are not take-outs.  The aspect is being invoked to trigger a compel to conceed, in my ever-humble opinion.  Which gives the victim quite a lot more influence on the narration that occurs subsequently.