Thaumaturgy, Aspects, and free tags...

[devonapple]

The thing baking my noodle about transformation is the fact that a player transforming himself could, ostensibly, Concede the conflict determining whether or not his transformation spell worked on himself, and Concede a Taken Out result.

Do the RAW mean that the spell has to completely Take Out a target, even a willing target?

That sounds interesting.... Hmm, could a Spirit-based Mental maneuver place an aspect on a target without Lawbreaking? If so, "I'm A Bear" could be a great Spell to make someone act like a bear.

No, that sounds more like a "quick and easy" Lawbreaking maneuver.

[UmbraLux]

I don't see how concessions effect the situation at all. A concession occurs sometime in between actions, not when a action is unresolved. So if someone attacks you and deals more stress than you can handle, you can't concede instead of taking the stress. You're just taken out at that point. You'd have to concede before the attack or after the attack. Since a transformation spell is essentially a conflict all wrapped up in one event, there is no way for a concession to occur. Either the spell hasn't happened yet (in which case they can't concede because there's nothing to concede to) or the spell is in process (in which case they can't concede because an action is unresolved) or the spell is finished (in which case they can't concede because the conflict is already over).

With thaumaturgy, I think spell prep may be part of the same scene.  But, even if you rule differently, you appear to be saying 'you can't concede to the first attack'.  Not sure I agree.  Don't have the book with me but I think you concede before the results / roll rather than before the attack.  I'll have to look this evening.

Even if you do run concessions as you describe, splitting the transformation into two spells would still allow the concession.

[computerking]

that sounds more like a "quick and easy" Lawbreaking maneuver.

I have to go hunting through the forum again, as I thought that recently there was a (partial) consensus that mind magic that didn't cause stress or consequences didn't count as Lawbreaking. It might have been mind magic that didn't cause mental stress or consequences, though.

Either way, a maneuvered Aspect doesn't count as a consequence, nor is it stress.
I think a new thread might be needed...

[Silverblaze]

The thing baking my noodle about transformation is the fact that a player transforming himself could, ostensibly, Concede the conflict determining whether or not his transformation spell worked on himself, and Concede a Taken Out result.

Do the RAW mean that the spell has to completely Take Out a target, even a willing target?

No, that sounds more like a "quick and easy" Lawbreaking maneuver.

RAW and novels claim healing with magic is hard.  I assume this means a target cannot choose to be taken out by magic and therefore healed instantly.  I also think biomancy used to regrow limbs and eyes would be too easy if a target could just concede the defense his body naturally applies to magic.

Transformation likely falls under the same clause.

[wyvern]

Hm.  Don't have the book in front of me, but my recollection is that the "must take out a target" descriptor for transformations was in the context of transforming someone else against their will.  I would not apply it to self-transformations or transforming a willing target; in those cases, I'd use maneuvers and - if needed - the temporary powers rules.  I believe that this interpretation is (at least close enough to) Rules-As-Intended, but will admit that the Rules-As-Written aren't quite so clear.

I think the "must take out a target" rule is mostly there to prevent some clever person from saying "Hey, aspects are everything!  I can turn my enemies into squirrels with just a maneuver, and then invoke for effect to make them flee like, well, squirrels."

[devonapple]

Hm.  Don't have the book in front of me, but my recollection is that the "must take out a target" descriptor for transformations was in the context of transforming someone else against their will.  I would not apply it to self-transformations or transforming a willing target;

The wrinkle in this approach is that Rick Neal, one of the prominent early testers for DFRPG, and a cited source of rules precedents (but not the end-all and be-all of Dresden rules interpretations), definitely modeled it as having to Take Out oneself to give oneself, in his example, Wings. See here for his "Rite of Icarus" example: http://www.rickneal.ca/?p=642

[Sanctaphrax]

...unless you're sticking to the rules as written.  I don't have anything against house rules but it's nice to know when we're straying from published text to local modifications.   

Going back to the text, an aspect may well have someone act as a bear and even consider themselves bear-like in some fashion.  Aspects are (or affect) the character's core identity - who they are.  Aspects will guide or limit actions and choices to a degree.  From a meta-game point of view, they're ways to manipulate the narrative by modifying skills and / or choices. 

A complete transformation explicitly requires a take-out.  That said, concessions make this almost as trivial as a maneuver for voluntary transformations.  The difference does matter - consider the potential affects of using maneuvers for involuntary transformation...

Not changing the rules, actually. The rules for thaumaturgy say that you can place aspects with a simple opposed maneuver but that you need to Take Out your target in order to make the spell permanent. The note about complete transformation seems to be written with that in mind.

I might be interpreting things differently from you, but I'm not changing anything.

[devonapple]

...but that you need to Take Out your target in order to make the spell permanent. The note about complete transformation seems to be written with that in mind.

Certainly, one should have to Take Out a target of a complete and permanent transformation.

However, Neal's Rite of Icarus has a duration of one day, but is also, ostensibly, designed in a way that obligates the caster to deal enough stress to himself (or another target) for a Taken Out result.

[sinker]

You know, something I've realized is that there are no hard rules on how to do this, and the GM (and to an extent the table) determines the complexity of any spell. If you think five shifts isn't enough then add shifts. If you think forty shifts is too many then take shifts away. Do whatever makes the table comfortable. Having said that, here are the thoughts I've had since last night.

But, even if you rule differently, you appear to be saying 'you can't concede to the first attack'.  Not sure I agree.  Don't have the book with me but I think you concede before the results / roll rather than before the attack.  I'll have to look this evening.

Even if you do run concessions as you describe, splitting the transformation into two spells would still allow the concession.

The issue that I see is that most of these transformations aren't an attack. They are an entire conflict. So I'm not saying that you can't concede to the first attack, I'm saying that you can't concede during the first attack, and in the case of transformation spells the first attack is the whole conflict. So before the spell occurs there is no conflict, nothing to concede to, and after the spell the conflict is already resolved one way or the other. Even if you split it into two spells, those are two separate conflicts, each consisting of a single attack. Normally I would agree with you about the concession being able to occur before the roll, but in this case there is no conflict until after the roll (after complexity has been determined, and all of the requisite power has been summoned) because if the spell fails, then there never is a conflict.

But all of this thought about conflict and take outs reminded me of something. In order to have conflict there must be two opposing sides. A wizard and a willing target are not two opposing sides, they want the same thing. A wizard and the target's form are two opposing sides, as the target's form wants to stay the way it is. This fits what we have heard in the cannon about transformation, a body wanting to keep its shape. So I'm wondering if there is such a thing as a willing target. Perhaps it's better if the wizard is fighting the GM representing the universal attitude of all things to retain their shape, in which case the target has no say in the matter.

[devonapple]

A wizard and the target's form are two opposing sides, as the target's form wants to stay the way it is. This fits what we have heard in the cannon about transformation, a body wanting to keep its shape. So I'm wondering if there is such a thing as a willing target. Perhaps it's better if the wizard is fighting the GM representing the universal attitude of all things to retain their shape, in which case the target has no say in the matter.

I like this train of thought. And for a "willing target," a GM could probably allow the player(s) to accumulate a handful of Declarations reflecting their willingness, mental preparation, etc. for being transformed.

[sinker]

Of course everything I've said thus far is about permanent transformation (the only one that requires a taken out result). However concessions are irrelevant to impermanent transformation as well, because the way to do that is with contests that take place outside of conflict anyway.

[UmbraLux]

Not changing the rules, actually. The rules for thaumaturgy say that you can place aspects with a simple opposed maneuver but that you need to Take Out your target in order to make the spell permanent. The note about complete transformation seems to be written with that in mind.

I might be interpreting things differently from you...

Probably!     But that's part of what makes a discussion worthwhile.  It'd be extremely boring if everyone agreed all the time.  I can see the threads now...  Poster 1:  "I say the sky is green!"  Posters 2-infinity:  "Yes, I agree."  It'd be boring.  I find disagreement interesting...as long as it remains civil. 

Regarding this disagreement in interpretation, it appears to hinge on how we interpret "...fully transformative...".  Discussion on permanency is in a different (previous) paragraph so I take that to mean it "transforms the whole body".  I think you're extending the previous subject into that statement. 

In many ways, FATE's openness to varying interpretations is both a strength and a weakness.  It broadens the potential audience while devaluing "RAW" discussions.  (Of course that may be a good thing...)

[devonapple]

In many ways, FATE's openness to varying interpretations is both a strength and a weakness.  It broadens the potential audience while devaluing "RAW" discussions.  (Of course that may be a good thing...)

The Prisoner Dilemma applies, in some way, to this situation. GMs want to have *some* sort of community consensus on things, if only to avoid the perception or reality of having been overly indulgent and permissive. There is a huge divide between one GM requiring a week-long 40-shift Ritual to do X, and another GM only requiring some debate, a 10-shift Ritual and a Fate Point to do the same thing.

[Becq]

Regarding the discussion of taking out via Thaum, concessions, etc:

Taking out an unwilling/resisting target is hard, requiring you to do enough shifts of 'damage' that the target couldn't withstand it, even with a maxed roll and marking off all consequences.  You can attempt such a thing with fewer shifts, but then the target can simply mark of the stress and take some consequences and avoid the full impact of the spell.

Taking out a willing target is easy.  Taking consequences is voluntary, so you only need to exceed the target's stress boxes.  Against most folk, this means you need only 3-4 shifts of effect (stress boxes+1), assuming the target can choose not to defend, thus defaulting to mediocre (0) defense result.  This is basically equal to a maneuver.  So turning a foe into a frog is a conflict in a spell, but turning yourself into a dog is fairly trivial, roughly equal to a maneuver even when 'fully transformative'.

I don't think that defense should ever be required, but even if you rule that the target has to 'defend' against it (to represent the body attempting to reject the transformation), the most you'd need is, say, Endurance+stress boxes+5 (about 10 for an average target) shifts of effect to guarantee the transformation for a target that chooses not to take consequences.

Note that the Laws and the Wardens might have something to say about it, even if the spells are easy to cast.

[Sanctaphrax]

Not really interested in arguing this, I'm afraid. It just looks dull. Sorry if you were looking forward to an online word-fight.