Questions for the Boss man

[Becq]

The question is clarified in the email. It's spellcasting specifically, since innate powers can't break the laws of magic.

I'm not so sure this is true.  Consider, for example, the description for the Psychic Abilities section on YS172, which says:
"Psychic abilities seem to divide into two types—ones which are more trouble than they’re worth (using the Sight can drive you mad; Cassandra’s Tears is more a source of sorrow than solace), and those which break the hell out of the Laws of Magic (Domination being a good example)."
Generally speaking, humans don't have access to the later category of powers ... but this indicates to me that a human who somehow learned Domination (which would metaphysically be treated as a very specialized form of magic) would be subject to gaining Lawbreakers.  (The Laws don't apply to monsters such as Black Court Vamps, who are abherrations to the natural order by there very existence.)

[sinker]

Hmm, weird.

[Tedronai]

but this indicates to me that a human who somehow learned Domination (which would metaphysically be treated as a very specialized form of magic)

(bolding added)

'Magic', in this context, meaning 'spellcasting', this is not much of an argument against the claim that only spellcasting is affected.

[Becq]

(bolding added)

'Magic', in this context, meaning 'spellcasting', this is not much of an argument against the claim that only spellcasting is affected.

Perhaps if you ignore the text you emphasized (which is just me inferring flavor text to the rules as written) and read the part I quoted, you'll see in bold text (emphasis mine, though the text is per the RAW) that Domination is "a good example" of an admittedly non-spellcasting power that nonetheless "breaks the hell out of the Laws of Magic".

This is a very good argument against the claim that only spellcasting is covered by the Laws for the purposes of gaining Lawbreakers.  That said, the Lawbreaker you gained by using Domination wouldn't benefit further uses of Domination unless your table decided that Domination counted as 'spellcasting' due to the wording of the Slippery Slop trapping of the Lawbreaker power.

[wyvern]

YS241, under "Non-spellcasting enthrallment"  (Go read it; the full quote is more than I care to type.)

For the purposes of game rules, such powers are already assumed to have assessed the costs for holding such sway over another's mind.

Flat-out, non-spellcasting powers don't lead to Lawbreaker stunts.  Now, such powers in the hands of, say, a minor practitioner, might get the Wardens involved... but it's not metaphysical Lawbreaking.

[Becq]

Which, in turn, is not only a great argument against what I wrote, but also a great example of the book contradicting itself. 

Ok, so I guess Domination does "break the hell out of the Laws of Magic", but for purposes of Lawbreaker stunts, "the costs for holding such sway over another's mind are already assumed to have been assessed".  Alrighty!

[wyvern]

Which, in turn, is not only a great argument against what I wrote, but also a great example of the book contradicting itself. 

Ok, so I guess Domination does "break the hell out of the Laws of Magic", but for purposes of Lawbreaker stunts, "the costs for holding such sway over another's mind are already assumed to have been assessed".  Alrighty!

Y'know, I can't argue with any of that.

[Richard_Chilton]

It does clarify one thing - any human who demonstrates (or brags about) certain powers should expect a visit from the Wardens, which is the in game consequence that happens when you "break the hell out of the Laws of Magic".

Richard

[computerking]

Was there any response from The Boss man on our questions?

[sinker]

I got distracted and never sent the email.

[sinker]

Ok, here it is.

Me: How do you run sponsored magic users when it comes to lawbreaking? Since it's not their magic does it still taint them somehow?

Fred: Lawbreaking is still a cost of casting certain kinds of nature-violating magic. (But maybe the sponsor would be willing to shoulder that cost in exchange for some particularly vicious debt.)

I think you've said something like this in the past. Can you be a little more specific as to what you mean by that? Are you saying that you might simply ignore the event in exchange for debt, or is there a way of mechanically representing this (like the temporary powers rules or something)?

I mean the player wouldn't take the stunt at all, nor get its benefits, but its sponsor would absorb the 'hit' and consider the player to be constantly in at least 1-2 points of debt each session (since that lines up with the cost of the stunt).

Also can pure mortals pick up the Lawbreaker (seventh) power from the wrong knowledge?

I probably wouldn't play it that way, but as you've guessed, that's a taste thing.

Does it work any differently since they don't have magic, or is it kinda wasted refresh?

It'd be wasted; doubtful they could do something with it; but I see this as more a plot device thing revolving around someone unleashing a [whatever] after reading the wrong book. But Lawbreaker usually implies that the owner of said stunt is some kind of practitioner, since all implementations affect the casting of spells, not general everyday activities.

Is there any situation where you feel that dealing mental stress with magic is ok (non-lawbreaking)? An example that keeps cropping up is that of the sleep or stun spell. Would you even consider that mental stress or would you run that as physical stress?

I'd consider it more than a little boring is what. I mean, really, those sorts of spells are pretty deprotagonizing when shot at the PCs and are essentially "put this target completely at my mercy" (so I can slit his throat or whatever) spells when PCs use them on NPCs. Which is pretty much the definition of a "taken out" result. Working towards that via whatever stress track is fine, I imagine -- your "sleep" or "stun" spell isn't really going to be producing a result that adds up to psychological trauma. Mental stress isn't an inherent violation. Invading someone's mind is.

Another question that came up while we were talking about this was if a mortal takes domination (or a similar power) to represent a focused and refined spell (like the Alphas' transformation) would they take lawbreaking powers or do we go with "such powers are already assumed to have assessed the costs for holding such sway over another's mind."(YS241)

Yeah, that's a little tricky, since it's all in the "soft" details rather than firmly in the system details. The rationale. I'd consider doing the Lawbreaker stunt there because the rationale says this is mortal magic rather than a "creature power".

Magic maneuvers. Do they have a duration based on the spell, or whether or not they are sticky? In other words if I maneuver is the aspect going to stick around for a number of exchanges equal to the shifts I devoted to duration, or is it going to stick around for the scene or until someone does something about it?

I'd probably treat them as a scene thing. Maneuvers are so lightweight, really. Persistence primarily matters with things like blocks and such. But I have a feeling I'm breaking the rules if I say it's so (I didn't write them).

Another question is what the book is talking about when it refers to "objects that store power" for evocation. It's fairly clear on what it's talking about thematically (relics, etc) but how would you run that mechanically? Is that a plot device kind of thing or is there a specific method that one could use?

I'd start by thinking about it in terms of ritual componentry, which is largely about objects-which-are-aspects.

Do you allow aspects to influence your evocation power? As I currently understand, aspects help with a roll, which doesn't happen for power, but it seems a little odd that a source of power would help with control.

An invoked aspect is a +2, right? Apply it to anything appropriate that has a numerical rating.

Finally transformation ritual on a willing target. Do you have to still have enough shifts of power to overcome all of their consequences, or could they technically choose not to take those consequences in which case you would only have to overcome the stress track?

One might suggest that this is a concession scenario.

I have to ask for a little more clarification on this one for two reasons. Firstly this is a huge one on the boards. No one seems to be able to come to a consensus on shifts necessary to transform a willing target. Secondly knowing what needs to be overcome is important for determining shifts. If we use the concession scenario, then do we simply need enough shifts to pay for the transformation effect itself without dealing any stress to the target?

No, concessions are done only in the face of stress. You'd have to deal enough stress to exceed the target's stress track for it to make sense for concessions to come into play. So that's your minimum.

This confuses me a bit. If you deal enough stress to exceed their stress track, then aren't they just taken out at that point, no concessions necessary?

That's the point at which they're:

- Taking a consequence and staying in the fight, or
- Conceding (though they could take a consequence), or
- Taken out (because they cannot take a consequence)

[devonapple]

That's great. That sets up as close as one gets to precedent that a willing target can Concede a Transformation effect, so long as they are in a position to Concede.

So which of the following would represent the minimum stress needed to Transform a willing target?:
A) Target's Defense skill + Target's Stress tracks + 5 shifts (4 for the best possible defense roll, +1 to justify a Concession)
or
B) Target's Defense skill + Target's Stress tracks + 1 shifts (to justify a Concession instead of rolling a Defense check)

[computerking]

I think I get the Objects that Store Power thing now... They could be extra ritual items among the Aspects gathered for the ritual, but in addition to the Aspects gathered to meet Complexity, therefore they remain taggable during the Power Control attempts.

At least, that's what it seems like to me.

[Becq]

I mean the player wouldn't take the stunt at all, nor get its benefits, but its sponsor would absorb the 'hit' and consider the player to be constantly in at least 1-2 points of debt each session (since that lines up with the cost of the stunt).

Debt refresh!  I kind of like the concept... 

Also can pure mortals pick up the Lawbreaker (seventh) power from the wrong knowledge?

I probably wouldn't play it that way, but as you've guessed, that's a taste thing.

Getting Lawbreakers as a Pure Mortal would be harsh.  Not only do you get an *entirely useless* -1 refresh power, but it costs you -3 refresh to get it due to the loss of the Pure Mortal bonus.

Hm.  Perhaps (as a house rule for those who want to enforce the 7th on mortals) you could make this one a stunt.  Maybe:

Knowledge Man Was Not Meant To Know (Lore stunt): You have delved into knowledge from beyond the Outer Gates, and have been ... changed by it.  Performing further research is inexplicably easier, but your soul feels somehow connected to the darkess you've learned about.  Gain a +1 to Lore when researching further into knowledge of this nature, and you also count as having the (additional) aspect "Knowledge Man Was Not Meant To Know" on your character sheet (and can be used for appropriate invokes or compels).

Or, heck, just replace the whole stunt with a point worth of that debt refresh Fred was mentioning, noting that the debt refresh is linked to forbidden knowledge of the outer planes.

your "sleep" or "stun" spell isn't really going to be producing a result that adds up to psychological trauma.

This.

Interesting answers.  The answer regarding friendly transformations makes such things quite a lot easier to do...

[sinker]

I think I get the Objects that Store Power thing now... They could be extra ritual items among the Aspects gathered for the ritual, but in addition to the Aspects gathered to meet Complexity, therefore they remain taggable during the Power Control attempts.

At least, that's what it seems like to me.

For ritual I would think that an object that stored power would only serve in meeting the complexity, as the object is unlikely to help you control power.

What he is talking about though is in evocation, these objects would serve as a +2 shifts of power available without needing to spend additional mental stress (sort of like debt). This is interesting because it seems that we could use this to boost the power of spells in a number of ways. Many of the things Dresden does in the books could be emulated with this, like pulling heat from a source to power a fire spell.