Lawbreaking without the Lawbreaker Power?

[InFerrumVeritas]

I'm considering removing the requirement to take the Lawbreaker power when a character breaks one of the Laws in game for a couple reasons and would like to know if anyone sees any unintended consequences.

How Lawbreaking will work:

If a mortal character breaks one of the Laws of Magic (whether they be Pure Mortal*, a Practitioner, or a Sponsored Mortal), they must change one of their seven permanent aspects to reflect the transgression. 

Once a character has broken one of the Laws of Magic, they may take the Lawbreaker power.  Additional violations allow the stunt to be taken multiple times.

Obviously, the Wardens will be just as interested in hunting down Lawbreakers.

*Seventh Law possibility, or through the use of a borrowed enchanted item.

Basically, I don't like the idea of having to take a power but don't want to lose any of the narrative weight. 

[Sanctaphrax]

Sounds like a decent idea.

So...what's the thread for?

[Tedronai]

So, under your modified system, do seven instances of Lawbreaking prompt 7 aspect changes?
Because that would be a substantially faster descent than standard RAW.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Sounds like a decent idea.

So...what's the thread for?

To see if there was anything I missed or any unintended consequences both mechanically or in flavor...like Tedronai pointed out in the following post.

@Tedronai.  Good catch.  No, I'd have the aspects change at a similar rate.  So one instance is first aspect change, three is second, six is third, nine fourth, etc.

[sinker]

Here's a couple of ideas that we threw around when I wanted a less restrictive Lawbreaker setup.

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27475.0.html

The game kinda fell through after the second session though, so I can't tell you if there are any long term effects.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Here's a couple of ideas that we threw around when I wanted a less restrictive Lawbreaker setup.

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,27475.0.html

The game kinda fell through after the second session though, so I can't tell you if there are any long term effects.

Yeah, I remember reading that at the time.  My goal is to make the Lawbreaker power an option (so that if someone wants to rock at mind raping, they can), but I've got a problem with taking a character away from a player.  In my view, a player only loses control of a character if a: the character dies, b: they want to roll a new one for whatever reason, c: they don't show up to the game.

[Vargo Teras]

Yeah, I remember reading that at the time.  My goal is to make the Lawbreaker power an option (so that if someone wants to rock at mind raping, they can), but I've got a problem with taking a character away from a player.  In my view, a player only loses control of a character if a: the character dies, b: they want to roll a new one for whatever reason, c: they don't show up to the game.

You're not required to remove player control because their PC's refresh dips.

[devonapple]

You're not required to remove player control because their PC's refresh dips.

Of course not! Anyone with a buffer of several Refresh has little risk of this happening.

However, almost any person playing a Wizard or other spellcaster is going to have spent all but one Refresh on Wizard stuff, so losing that Refresh to a stunt will, perforce, make the character an NPC after the scene in which it happens, per the RAW.

You are, as always, free to ignore that rule and allow players to play 0-Refresh characters. They aren't *that* much different than 1-Refresh characters: both will be seeking Compels as often as possible.

[sinker]

It does kind of cross a line though. If I can play a character with 0 refresh then why can't I play a character with -1 refresh (I.E. starting each session with a point of debt)? Or -30?

I guess I'm not saying that's bad though, I could see really enjoying a character that starts with a couple of points of debt, but it is unexplored territory.

Now that I think of it, that might be a great way to handle lawbreaker, InFerrumVeritas. Allow players to hold on to their characters after 0 refresh and use debt to bring it up. May not be what you want though.

[Vargo Teras]

It does kind of cross a line though. If I can play a character with 0 refresh then why can't I play a character with -1 refresh (I.E. starting each session with a point of debt)? Or -30?

I guess I'm not saying that's bad though, I could see really enjoying a character that starts with a couple of points of debt, but it is unexplored territory.

I think it crosses less of a line than turning someone's character into an NPC, especially if the trigger is accidental and/or the result of a High Concept or Trouble compel.  If someone's compelled into a scene where they end up unleashing a lot of fallout, and end up killing someone with that fallout, it could lead to a lot of interesting roleplaying.  That's a potentially interesting story arc, but the story doesn't arc anywhere if the character leaves the game at the beginning by virtue of losing their last point of Refresh.

[sinker]

I would argue that they are merely different lines, and either will have more or less value to different people.

The point I was trying to make is that we might want to think about the repercussions of allowing players to play zero or negative refresh characters.

[Becq]

The Lawbreaker powers have always kind of annoyed me, so I can see why you'd toy with changing them.  I understand why they were put in (ie, falling to the temptation of DF's equivalent of The Dark Side), but even so, I disliked the idea that it was either avoid breaking the Law like the plague or immediately lose your character (because most spellflingers are likely not to have refresh to spare, as mentioned by others.

I like your idea for toning it down a bit, and I think the key to it working will be how you implement the aspect changes.  The weak link might end up being the player who doesn't really care about playing up the whole Lawbreaker drama thing, so to speak, and just designates one of his aspects as being his "Lawbreaker slot".  Then any time he's told he has to , he just makes a minor tweak to it.  "I broke the 1st Law" -> "I broke the 1st Law many times" -> "I broke the 1st Law many times, and the 2nd Law, too!"  Which is pretty boring, in my opinion.

Instead, you might want to rule that the player has to taint a different aspect each time its called for, and make the change a team effort to guarantee that the change is interesting and also reflects the darkening of the character's soul.

As an aside, the "benefits" of the Lawbreaker power can even be represented through the aspect change, without needing the power.  Just let the player invoke the tainted aspect when breaking the aspect again (which probably doesn't even need to be counted as a house rule).  Or even allow them to tag the aspect for debt (though its probably worth limiting how often this can occur -- maybe once per scene, or up to a limit of X debt).

[toturi]

I like your idea for toning it down a bit, and I think the key to it working will be how you implement the aspect changes.  The weak link might end up being the player who doesn't really care about playing up the whole Lawbreaker drama thing, so to speak, and just designates one of his aspects as being his "Lawbreaker slot".  Then any time he's told he has to , he just makes a minor tweak to it.  "I broke the 1st Law" -> "I broke the 1st Law many times" -> "I broke the 1st Law many times, and the 2nd Law, too!"  Which is pretty boring, in my opinion.

I think that it is matter of player preference. If the player wants his character to be a Lawbreaker but doesn't want it to be the reason why the spotlight is on the character, then "boring" is precisely the point.

[InFerrumVeritas]

I think that it is matter of player preference. If the player wants his character to be a Lawbreaker but doesn't want it to be the reason why the spotlight is on the character, then "boring" is precisely the point.

I'll just say that as GM, if anyone breaks the Laws and expects it not to put a spotlight on them, they don't know me very well.  My players are rather paranoid about unintended consequences at this point.