Fourth Law of Magic Help

[The Mighty Buzzard]

This, I think, is where the system becomes useful.  Harry & Co. have to talk in vague terms like suggestion (acceptable) and compulsion (Lawbreaking.)  We can talk about maneuvers, blocks, and taken out results.  Since the first two can be overcome via fate point expenditure and good rolling respectively they can be considered suggestions, while the latter cannot be overcome once established, so it would be a compulsion.

Right, like the aversion spell Harry had on his bolt hole in TC.  The Mr. Grumpy Pants attitude he got from Morgan over it said he was treading too close to the line for his liking but was still barely on the safe side.  So, while you might be able to put a maneuver on an area that made someone jittery and want to be elsewhere, you couldn't make it strong enough to actually block someone who had business in that area and you definitely could not target full on fear at an individual.

Back to the previously mentioned sleep spells, they've only been used by Council wizards so far to keep people that the wizard had no interest in harming from unnecessary pain. 

(click to show/hide)

Gatekeeper knocking out Harry's posse to keep from having to hurt them, Harry putting the woman the WCV had screwed with out so as not to exacerbate the damage, Molly keeping the already beaten and unconscious Big Hoods under so they wouldn't wake and risk further unnecessary injury.

  I doubt you could get away with using it as a combat tactic against a direct opponent though.

And that's if it would even work against an alert opponent(s) without a lot more shifts.  Thinking surprised (mediocre (+0)+4df) vs alert and fighting it (discipline+4df) here.  It could add up to being a very short or very costly sleep spell in a hurry, especially on multiple targets.

[UmbraLux]

This, I think, is where the system becomes useful.  Harry & Co. have to talk in vague terms like suggestion (acceptable) and compulsion (Lawbreaking.)  We can talk about maneuvers, blocks, and taken out results.  Since the first two can be overcome via fate point expenditure and good rolling respectively they can be considered suggestions, while the latter cannot be overcome once established, so it would be a compulsion.

I'd suggest an extreme consequence would also cross the line to compulsion even if it didn't go on to take the victim out entirely.  It makes a fairly permanent change...

[Taran]

I find the Laws regarding Mental tampering very frustrating and ambiguous.  My group is constantly debating it.  Is mental stress law-breaking? Do you need to do consequences?  An extreme consequence?  Is a sleep spell mental damage or physical damage?  Is it a maneuver?

What is the line between Forcing someone to react a certain way or implanting an image that will get them to react the way you want? 

I kind of see Ways and Means' point.  If I know my target well enough, I know what will get them angry/scared etc...  So if I make them feel/see those things, they still have the CHOICE to react any way they want - but human nature makes them more prone to reacting a certain way....

[sinker]

For me it depends largely on the player. This game is very much based on story and player intent. Since there are so many ways to achieve any specific action (attack, maneuver, block, grapple, etc) it seems silly to me to penalize a specific player because he chooses grey magic. If a player wants to be breaking the laws then they will be, and if they don't, they won't.

Furthermore, all wizards should have the ability to do all things that thaumaturgy and evocation (and their elements I suppose) allow. Unless someone has an aspect (like "not so subtle, still quick to anger") and is being compelled, it should be assumed that all wizards are capable of attacking/maneuvering/blocking with magic. It's not really fair to say that a biomantically focused wizard for example, can't attack, because he can't do it without breaking the second law. Stating that x thing always breaks the law creates this potential limit.

Of course I have players that will make the decision based on the story and not what's mechanically most powerful, so I have the freedom to have that attitude. I understand that some people don't play that way.

Additionally I draw the line at mental consequences. Every time I read the section on mental conflict it reminds me that dealing mental consequences is serious bad mojo. I draw the line at consequences because you really aren't changing the person till then, merely wearing them out.

And I usually say that sleep spells can be either mental or physical, but I usually go with physical because of the above mentioned aversion to mental consequences.

[Masurao]

Furthermore, all wizards should have the ability to do all things that thaumaturgy and evocation (and their elements I suppose) allow. Unless someone has an aspect (like "not so subtle, still quick to anger") and is being compelled, it should be assumed that all wizards are capable of attacking/maneuvering/blocking with magic. It's not really fair to say that a biomantically focused wizard for example, can't attack, because he can't do it without breaking the second law. Stating that x thing always breaks the law creates this potential limit.

Uhm, isn't that the whole point of any law? :S

I mean, I know there are (loop)holes, like self-defense, in many laws. It should be the reason that any wizard is careful when using magic against mortals. If you happen to specialize in biomancy, then perhaps you're doubly careful because of the extra danger your chosen field presents. Just face it: you're the neurosurgeon amongst wizards

[sinker]

It just seems really contradictory to me to say "Oh, it's really great that you chose a specialty and created a unique character instead of a general cookie-cutter wizard. Now I'm going to cut your arm off."

I'd rather encourage great character building rather than penalize it, so I choose to allow my players the freedom of using their powers in the way that the RAW describes them being used, regardless of the flavor chosen.

Again though, I trust my players to take lawbreaker when it's dramatically appropriate. Not all player/GM relationships are like that.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Furthermore, all wizards should have the ability to do all things that thaumaturgy and evocation (and their elements I suppose) allow.

Sure, why not start them off at 30 refresh and give them a BFG 9000 while you're at it.  Unlimited characters don't have much potential for growth and growth is a big part of the fun of playing any character.

It's not really fair to say that a biomantically focused wizard for example, can't attack, because he can't do it without breaking the second law.

A) If you think a biomantically focused wizard can't attack, you shouldn't play a biomantically focused wizard.  I could play one just fine and stay within the laws.
B) Patient: Doctor, it hurts when I do this.  Doctor: Then don't do that.
Seriously, that's like complaining that the cops are being a pain in the butt after you knocked over a liquor store. 

Stating that x thing always breaks the law creates this potential limit.

Yup.  Actions have consequences.  It's a recurring theme throughout both the books and the RPG.  If that's not something you're interested in having in a game, you're either going to have to make a lot of house rules or find another game.

Honestly, it sounds like you're running a game for people who don't think a game is fun unless you can do whatever you want, whenever you want.  If they all dig on that kind of thing, peachy.  Personally, I couldn't stand to sit through even one session ran like that.

[sinker]

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that I like a game where there's no consequences for actions, in fact I (and my players) love it when our past mistakes come back to haunt us in a game.

What I'm saying is that in a game run by me, the laws are broken when it's dramatically appropriate for them to be, not because someone decided to pick a grey specialty.

I had a fledgling mind mage in an earlier game. Trained by a circle neuromancer and with the sincere belief that what she was doing could help people, and that the white council were just a bunch of bullies trying to control her (they were "the man"). She did a lot of grey magic all of the time, but little things (sleep spells, minor attraction effects, etc). At one point someone attacked one of the two people that she held dear. I chose to reach out and crush his mind. I chose to take lawbreaker (as well as an extreme consequence) because it was appropriate to the story, and she actually became a villain after that (She didn't go off the deep end, but I retired her soon after that because she didn't fit with the rest of the party).

To me that is an appropriate use of the lawbreaker power. Not as an axe for the GM to lord over the players heads, dropping it when it's mechanically possible.

Generally what I was trying to say that I think you responded to so much wasn't that the players should be able to do everything, but that they should be able to do what their powers say they should, and I think the RAW backs me up on that ("A block is a block is a block" on YS252). Anyone with channeling or evocation should be able to block, attack and maneuver, without the laws getting in the way. And I suppose that creative people will always find a way around them, but it really sucks to have your character handicapped just because you can't think past some arbitrary boundary.

Story over mechanics, fun over frustration. This is the way I look at all games.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Generally what I was trying to say that I think you responded to so much wasn't that the players should be able to do everything, but that they should be able to do what their powers say they should, and I think the RAW backs me up on that ("A block is a block is a block" on YS252). Anyone with channeling or evocation should be able to block, attack and maneuver, without the laws getting in the way. And I suppose that creative people will always find a way around them, but it really sucks to have your character handicapped just because you can't think past some arbitrary boundary.

Eh, it still sounds to me that you're just not terribly happy with the Laws existing in the first place.  Yeah it says a block is a block is a block but it doesn't say a necromantic block is free of the Laws.  It also says that Psychomancers may also be referred to as headless and that nearly all of Necromancy violates the 5th law on YW286.  Can vs Legal.  Some specializations simply should not be taken unless the player understands and is willing to live with their legal limitations.

I mean it sounds like you played your neuromancer well and according to the rules and it made for a good story but then you go advocating for wholesale breaking of the Laws without consequence for the sake of convenience.  The two just aren't meshing in my head.

[polkaneverdies]

I see what you are saying Sinker and to some extent I agree with you. The importance of the story should come first.
Having said that though the Laws are fairly big pain in the butt for a reason and should remain so.
  I am curious Sinker how you and your group would view your mind mage assessing a sleeping individual to see if mind magic had been used on them. I ask because when Molly did that to Luccio with no ill intent both Harry and Morgan thought it was a clear violation that would shorten her height by about a head's worth.

[sinker]

It seems like we're both assuming that the other has a hard and fast rule about how we do things. If someone breaks the law, then they break the law and I think that they should take lawbreaker. I'm not trying to disagree with that. What I'm trying to say is that since a player is only limited by their creativity in this matter, and that a creative player will figure out how to do x without breaking the laws, then is it not ok to assume that everyone can do that regardless of creativity, and then only break the law when they actually want to? I can think of a number of ways that a kemmlerian necromancer can block, attack, or maneuver, without actually breaking the fifth law, but just because someone else can't does that mean that they should be penalized, and potentially killed (which is essentially what going off the deep end is)?

And that's a really tough question polka, simply because when Harry does it (and how Harry does it), it seems perfectly fine (which seems to back up my whole if it can be done in a non-lawbreaking way it should be, unless there's a reason otherwise). I don't see a lot of consistency in the fiction (which is perfectly fine by me) which is why I often try to fuddle these things out for myself rather than relying solely on the books. Much of what I'm going off of is the attitude of "What makes the most fun?" which is going to be different for everyone, and will even be different among members of the same table.

[polkaneverdies]

The only time I can recall that harry "checked" for mind magic was with the lawyer that hire the PI. That he picked up on during a soul gaze, not a brain scan.

Of course as I type this up I remember that the gatekeeper was scanning everybody in the aftermath of turncoat and presumably it didn't turn him into a hardened warlock.
Perhaps their reaction to it was a reflection of an apprentice under the Doom for mind mojo scanning the head of the wardens rather than the act itself.
(Curses now its more muddled!)

[Masurao]

And that's a really tough question polka, simply because when Harry does it (and how Harry does it), it seems perfectly fine (which seems to back up my whole if it can be done in a non-lawbreaking way it should be, unless there's a reason otherwise). I don't see a lot of consistency in the fiction (which is perfectly fine by me) which is why I often try to fuddle these things out for myself rather than relying solely on the books. Much of what I'm going off of is the attitude of "What makes the most fun?" which is going to be different for everyone, and will even be different among members of the same table.

I think that the event polka is referring to, was an actual use of mind magic by Molly. Harry only used his Sight to deduce what magic was used on Molly's "victims" (I forget their names). At least, that is how I remember it at the moment

I totally agree with you that it is up to the player to be creative and the story is very important, perhaps indeed it comes first. And if the player is actively trying to get as much out of the Laws without breaking them and without bending them too often, that is super, but the laws are there for a reason. (Which you acknowledge, I know As long as it is appropriate to the character concept and allow at the table, fine, but effort is important.

Example: I play a psychomancer and I which to block someone's movement through my Channeling power. Do I describe this effect in some detail and then roll, or just roll? As a GM I would allow you to just roll in some cases (especially if you're using something like a rote spell/signature move), but it should be established what you do. Do you temporarily cut of his mental control of his legs? That's pretty grey to me. Or do you cause a slight hiccup in his brain that causes him to stumble, as if by chance? Technically and mechanically the same, narrative-wise, not so much.

Can it be fun? Sure, but when you use magic to deter the conscious control of someone's body subconsciously, it might cause some mental 'scarring'. "Why won't my legs move? I now I can move them, I did so just a second ago! I can feel them! WHY WON'T YOU MOVE?!" This is relatively minor, of course, but it can get out of hand.

Imagine that, besides the psychomancer, there is also a wizard (with Spirit-element) in the group, played by a somewhat lazy person narrative-wise. He sees how effective the psychomancer's block was and says, "Yeah, I can do that too! Let me roll and I'll keep the other guy from moving too." Well, let's just say I'd keep my eye on him/her. If it happens more often, I'll simply 'compel' the fact he's copycatting another character's move, but imperfectly and screwed up or something. Then again, I get the feeling I'm a somewhat vindictive GM :p

So, what I'm saying is, if someone puts effort into describing how they want to do something for the sake of the story, instead of for the sake of mechanics, I'd be a happy GM

[The Mighty Buzzard]

What I'm trying to say is that since a player is only limited by their creativity in this matter, and that a creative player will figure out how to do x without breaking the laws, then is it not ok to assume that everyone can do that regardless of creativity, and then only break the law when they actually want to?

Ok, on the same page now.  I actually do have a hard and fast rule about that.  Everyone present argues about a use that's questionable.  If none of us can come up with a way it can be done without breaking a Law, they get their choice of a take-back or Lawbreaker.  If we can and the player is agreeable to the interpretation, that's what they meant and we continue on.  It gets everyone involved, even if their character isn't in the scene and it leverages the creative power of X people rather than just one towards a player understanding what their character can do.

Yeah, it might interfere with the story but the group I play with loves to argue and figure out ways to bend a rule.  Back in our DnD days, our motto was "Yet again <our group name> triumphs over a carefully crafted DM plot".

[sinker]

Ok, on the same page now.  I actually do have a hard and fast rule about that.  Everyone present argues about a use that's questionable.  If none of us can come up with a way it can be done without breaking a Law, they get their choice of a take-back or Lawbreaker.  If we can and the player is agreeable to the interpretation, that's what they meant and we continue on.  It gets everyone involved, even if their character isn't in the scene and it leverages the creative power of X people rather than just one towards a player understanding what their character can do.

That sounds like a great way to deal with that. I think I just err a little bit on the other side, assuming that all grey magic isn't lawbreaking unless someone wants to make an issue of it (in which case I have to remember that idea).

I also do have specific things that I feel ARE lawbreaking regardless (fifth through seventh laws are pretty clear cut), but I think my interpretations are a little more literal than others. For example for me the fourth law is only broken if you completely remove someone's free will (even if only for a specific instance or period). As long as they are still capable of making a choice, even if it's a tough choice (I.E. involving pain or fear), then no lawbreaker.