the laws of magic

[potestas]

has anyone modified or eliminated them to facilitate better game play? If you did modify them how? I think they are needed to enjoy the game in a dresden sort of way but if they are enforced even modestly most of your wizards will be wanted by the wardens. How have you modified them. If you havent and dont think they should be please don't respond; this is a thread for those that have or have thought about decent ways to balance it better.

[Troy]

I don't understand.

Even modestly enforced people are Lawbreakers? How so?

I think most people follow the example of the novels and anything Harry gets by with, the PCs can get by with.

[potestas]

I don't understand.

Even modestly enforced people are Lawbreakers? How so?

I think most people follow the example of the novels and anything Harry gets by with, the PCs can get by with.

i'll be more blunt. I dont like the laws of magic, there a nice story telling device for JB, but they suck for gaming (my opinion) I want to keep them for the story telling, but not as a rules that hamper what can be done. I dont care if you invade the mind of a human, wizards can or could always do this and if you cant your not much of a wizard. Wizards could always transform people into other shapes its a staple of being a wizard. But alas the rules of magic in the dresden world say nay you cant or the all powerful wardens will stomp all over you. so basically you are a wizard but you cant do anything that normal story wizards can do. Its JB world so he gets to write it how he wants. I dont have to agree or play it that way except....i dont want to divorce myself completely from the universe. So my game will not worry about the "rules" but to be a dresden universe they have to play  part. So my question was actually simple if you agree that the rules hamper the fun of playing a wizard but dont want to completely divorce yourself from the dresden universe, how do you do it?

[Hick Jr]

I agree that some readings of the Laws are legalistic and can make playing a wizard a little unfun at points, and that the use the Wardens as unstoppable boogeymen is ridiculous-several named characters in the books easily evade the Wardens for decades at a time-but the Laws are a really useful device for the GM in that they keep wizards from being hilariously broken, gameplay wise.

I've never actually run a game, only played in them, but I tend to go with pretty fast-and-loose reading of the Laws, compared to some people's views. It seems to work just fine.

[Blk4ce]

My problem with Laws is that in the game the are assumed to be fundamental laws of reality, like Newton or gravity. Reading the novels, I always thought that they were more like laws created by a goverment (the White Council). That much I can accept and like (cops, the wardens, uphold the law and protect innocents, let's be real, you feel safer with a law that makes invading minds a criminal act). But making it a law of reality, not only has so many holes and lessens the fun, there have also been cases where it isn't so strictly adhered by powerful wizards (example Rashid and Harry, in which Rashid acknowledges Harry's need for self-defence).

[blackstaff67]

The First and Seventh Laws are the ones PC's can most easily fall afoul of.  Before this is moved to Law Talk, I can only say that I hope the GM involved will warn people of their possibility of breaking a Law and not playing "gotcha!"

That said, I'm still keeping all of them.

[potestas]

My problem with Laws is that in the game the are assumed to be fundamental laws of reality, like Newton or gravity. Reading the novels, I always thought that they were more like laws created by a goverment (the White Council). That much I can accept and like (cops, the wardens, uphold the law and protect innocents, let's be real, you feel safer with a law that makes invading minds a criminal act). But making it a law of reality, not only has so many holes and lessens the fun, there have also been cases where it isn't so strictly adhered by powerful wizards (example Rashid and Harry, in which Rashid acknowledges Harry's need for self-defence).

MY thoughts exactly, so i was wondering if anyone had worked up a playable solution. I wanted to make it revolve around self defense or if no one sees you do it then it didn't happen. It seems bookwise its something the powerful use to keep the weak from using their power in a way the strong do. Even a weak wizards is pretty much unstoppable for brief periods of time against normals.

[Hick Jr]

The First and Seventh Laws are the ones PC's can most easily fall afoul of.  Before this is moved to Law Talk, I can only say that I hope the GM involved will warn people of their possibility of breaking a Law and not playing "gotcha!"

That said, I'm still keeping all of them.

Yeah, this should really be on the Law Talk sticky.

I think a lot of people's problems with the Laws arise from being forced to take the Power by their GM, which, because your average wizard is a 1 FP character, renders them an NPC. My groups handle the "changed personality" part with an Aspect switch-taking the Power is entirely voluntary and represent the wizard embracing the fact that they've broken that Law. For example, Harry wouldn't have First Lawbreaker because he's disgusted by the idea of killing someone with magic, but he would have an Aspect related to the fact that he broke a Law. Molly would have Third/Fourth Lawbreaker because she doesn't really see a problem with breaking into people's heads.

[PirateJack]

My problem with Laws is that in the game the are assumed to be fundamental laws of reality, like Newton or gravity. Reading the novels, I always thought that they were more like laws created by a goverment (the White Council). That much I can accept and like (cops, the wardens, uphold the law and protect innocents, let's be real, you feel safer with a law that makes invading minds a criminal act). But making it a law of reality, not only has so many holes and lessens the fun, there have also been cases where it isn't so strictly adhered by powerful wizards (example Rashid and Harry, in which Rashid acknowledges Harry's need for self-defence).

This is so going to end up in Law Talk.

I'm not quite sure how you managed to come to this conclusion given that Harry talks about the stain of black magic in practically every book. It's especially noted once we hit Proven Guilty and have Molly's mistakes to observe. While the White Council may not have the Laws of Magic completely accurate, they haven't just made them up as a way to limit other Wizards' power. There is a fundamental cosmic force that stains the soul of Wizards who break the Laws; it's even visible under the Sight and through a Soulgaze.

I mean, this is one of the basic facts of the Dresdenverse. Denying the stain of black magic, to me, is akin to denying thermodynamics in the real world.

[Belial666]

Forget everything about the metaphysical part of the Laws for a moment and think about it this way;

1) Invading minds is forcing yourself into a person's most intimate parts without consent. Getting information from someone forcibly is like beating them up until they tell you. Changing people's minds forcibly is like lobotomizing them or doing shock therapy until you get the desired outcome.
1b) Believing that rape, torture and mutilation makes you what you are (wizard or otherwise) means you're dangerously, undeniably insane. Lawbreaker ahoy.


2) Transforming someone into less than human (such as a pig ala Circe) by force means a) they no longer have usable hands or upright position, b) they no longer have free will, c) they no longer are intelligent at the same level since they don't have a human brain.
2b) Believing that slavery and mutilation makes you what you are (wizard or otherwise) means you're dangerously, undeniably insane. Lawbreaker ahoy.


3)

if you agree that the rules hamper the fun of playing a wizard

Nope. The rules say that if you are a dangerous, undeniably insane guy with access to the equivalent of high explosives or worse and like to use them one of the following applies;
a) You've become dangerously insane on some level. If your stability of personality and free will (refresh) was not good to begin with (only had 1 point left) then you lose it and become a monster.
b) Dude, you're dangerously insane and have access to high explosives that cannot be taken from you. Even if you didn't degenerate into a total monster, the wizard secret police (and any police) will totally try to shorten you by a head.

3b) If you're having fun lobotomizing, mutilating and raping people, then chances are you already have Lawbreaker and don't know it. Better add it to your sheet - you might as well get the benefits along with all the negatives you have anyway.


4) Dresden is insane at some level. He recognizes it himself. It is even metaphysically confirmed multiple times in the series. That's not only because he broke some Laws but it did play a part. A big one.

[potestas]

This is so going to end up in Law Talk.

I'm not quite sure how you managed to come to this conclusion given that Harry talks about the stain of black magic in practically every book. It's especially noted once we hit Proven Guilty and have Molly's mistakes to observe. While the White Council may not have the Laws of Magic completely accurate, they haven't just made them up as a way to limit other Wizards' power. There is a fundamental cosmic force that stains the soul of Wizards who break the Laws; it's even visible under the Sight and through a Soulgaze.

I mean, this is one of the basic facts of the Dresdenverse. Denying the stain of black magic, to me, is akin to denying thermodynamics in the real world.

the point of this thread wasn't law talk. it was how people who had already decided they didnt care for it changed it for their games. please stay on topic. If you play using the laws thats great i dont want to and I am looking for input from those who have found creative ways around them but still maintain some of the flavor of the laws.

[g33k]

Yeah, this should really be on the Law Talk sticky.

I think a lot of people's problems with the Laws arise from being forced to take the Power by their GM, which, because your average wizard is a 1 FP character, renders them an NPC. My groups handle the "changed personality" part with an Aspect switch-taking the Power is entirely voluntary and represent the wizard embracing the fact that they've broken that Law. For example, Harry wouldn't have First Lawbreaker because he's disgusted by the idea of killing someone with magic, but he would have an Aspect related to the fact that he broke a Law. Molly would have Third/Fourth Lawbreaker because she doesn't really see a problem with breaking into people's heads.

+1,  and kudos for a nice elegant solution.

But (to the OP) I think you underestimate the importance of the Laws to the "feel" of the Dresdenverse.  Without the pervasive metaphysical tug of lawbreaking-temptation, the moral taint/stain, I think you risk discovering the gameworld has become a bit more of a generic MUF-pastiche.  That said, HickJr seems -- to me -- to have your solution.  Use the version of Lawbreaker that's Just-An-Aspect to reflect something accidental, involuntary, a last-ditch effort of self-defense or defense-of-helpless-innocents, and the like; use the Stunts to show that slide-toward-monsterhood that Harry often finds himself shying away from.

As for the "just get rid of the Laws" vibe I think I get... that just wouldn't feel like the Dresdenverse to me.  YMMV -- and obviously does!

- Steve, the g33k
 

[AstronaughtAndy]

I think compels would be able to solve this.

[bobjob]

I think a lot of people's problems with the Laws arise from being forced to take the Power by their GM, which, because your average wizard is a 1 FP character, renders them an NPC. My groups handle the "changed personality" part with an Aspect switch-taking the Power is entirely voluntary and represent the wizard embracing the fact that they've broken that Law. For example, Harry wouldn't have First Lawbreaker because he's disgusted by the idea of killing someone with magic, but he would have an Aspect related to the fact that he broke a Law. Molly would have Third/Fourth Lawbreaker because she doesn't really see a problem with breaking into people's heads.

This is essentially how I'm handling it in games that I run. I find it's a more elegant solution than "You broke a law but you're not embracing the fact that you did it? -1 refresh for you, you're now an NPC." 

[Mr. Death]

I don't see any problem with the laws as they're written into the game. Given the clear metaphysical reality we see in the books, breaking the Laws of magic does change you and alter your free will, so that is reflected in the gameplay exactly the same way as taking on any other power does.