ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Drachasor on February 15, 2011, 12:56:53 AM
-
The rules for taking someone out indicate that you decide how they get taken out. If you do 8 stress of damage to a zone or two of people, some of them civilians, you could decide no one dies. Heck, seems like you decide on an individual basis. Perhaps the civvies all have some burns and are in shock (can't do anything), and the majority of the heat was focused on the bad guys who get incinerated. Assuming that strikes everyone as possible/reasonable, then that is how the attack would go down, right?
I suppose someone could die because of fallout and it would be up to the group to decide whether that qualifies as breaking the first law.
-
Well, it still needs to be within the realm of reason. A Weapon:4 attack is bombs and things. If you call down a firestorm and then say that everyone survives with burns/shock, depending on circumstances, the GM and group might be within their rights to call shenanigans on your decision.
-
That is my issue with the Take Outs. You could hit someone with a weapon 10 battleship cannon, and say they survive it without any lasting harm. When it is my decision, I house-rule common sense. so if you use a Weapon 5 or higher (cannons, magic, etc.), don't expect them to survive.
-
Assuming that strikes everyone as possible/reasonable,...
This is key. If you hit a human with enough shifts (from an attack capable of killing) to overflow their last consequence, it's probably hard to argue the reasonableness of surviving the attack. A careful mage might choose to toss around concussive / stunning blows, taser-like electrical attacks, or even disabling gas instead of balls of fire. More chances an unintended target would survive...
-
It might be better to say that if they survive they do so with an extreme consequence, especially if there's 10 or more stress in a single attack.
You brought down a fire storm when there were innocent bystanders? That model now has burns (and later scar tissue) over much of her body, changing her high concept from "Fun Loving Model" to "Scarred Former Model".
Or in other words, if you're using the big guns then there should be consequences so if there aren't deaths then there should be lasting damage. Hopefully something that adds to plot, like a scarred former model who summons a demon in an effort to regain her beauty, only to lose control of it. Or there's a donation jar in the PC's favorite coffee shop, trying to raise money for that poor little kid's medical bills. Or someone is crippled and later decides that he doesn't want to live in a wheelchair so his grief stricken brother tracks down the thing that caused his brother's injuries, looking to even the score.
Just something to think about.
Richard
-
This is key. If you hit a human with enough shifts (from an attack capable of killing) to overflow their last consequence, it's probably hard to argue the reasonableness of surviving the attack. A careful mage might choose to toss around concussive / stunning blows, taser-like electrical attacks, or even disabling gas instead of balls of fire. More chances an unintended target would survive...
Yes, obviously some things are easier to justify than others. Fire is fun, but harder to justify people surviving. Same with the dissolving attacks of water. Lightning is probably the easiest since it can just shock the system.
Now, it seems like you SHOULD be able to have shift 5+ magic attacks to disable people though. The question in my mind is, how important is declaring it a non-lethal attack when you make it? One could argue a heatwave could cause people to pass out...is it ok to say you cause some areas to have columns of fire and others to just make people pass out in a zone? Or do we think that's too complicated? Is there a big difference between a spell that tasers people or one that zaps them with lightning? And in particular if you make an enchanted item, does it have to specify which it does or can it be decided on use how lethal you want the attack to be?
Seems to me like there should generally be a lot of leeway here, though perhaps a good rule of thumb would be that everyone (or almost everyone) should be treated about the same way in terms of the hit.
It might be better to say that if they survive they do so with an extreme consequence, especially if there's 10 or more stress in a single attack.
Well, a Severe and Mild are the same as an extreme, for what it is worth. Now if you are tossing around 20-shift, zone-wide attacks, people surviving should be a lot less likely.
That is my issue with the Take Outs. You could hit someone with a weapon 10 battleship cannon, and say they survive it without any lasting harm. When it is my decision, I house-rule common sense. so if you use a Weapon 5 or higher (cannons, magic, etc.), don't expect them to survive.
To be fair, a Battleship Cannon might not have made a direct hit. Heck, if you have a character hit by such a cannon, you can decide how direct the hit it. Make it a severe or extreme consequence for a more direct hit, or soak it up with a mild and moderate for something you were just on the edge of. It's possible to get "taken out" by a battleship cannon and not killed, and precluding fallout a mage has a lot more control over his attacks than a battleship does, for what it is worth.
-
Now, it seems like you SHOULD be able to have shift 5+ magic attacks to disable people though. The question in my mind is, how important is declaring it a non-lethal attack when you make it?
Very important. Remember, you start with effect and work backwards to mechanics when designing spells.
One could argue a heatwave could cause people to pass out...is it ok to say you cause some areas to have columns of fire and others to just make people pass out in a zone? Or do we think that's too complicated?
Heat stroke is relatively deadly, not something to take lightly. That said, a spell targeted at a zone hits the zone with the same effect. You need to split the spell's power if you want different effects on different targets.
Is there a big difference between a spell that tasers people or one that zaps them with lightning?
Yep, amperage. :) More seriously, or at least more relevant to the game, it's the 'effects first' issue again. If I want to stun, my lightning bolt will be shaped to stun (extremely high voltage and very low amperage). If I want to kill, I just run a few more amps through it...
And in particular if you make an enchanted item, does it have to specify which it does or can it be decided on use how lethal you want the attack to be?
Focus items, yes...both are offensive spells of either air or earth. Enchanted items are a bit more problematical. They generally contain a single spell with the parameters already decided. I'd be tempted to charge a shift for the flexibility...but might be convinced otherwise by a good argument.
Seems to me like there should generally be a lot of leeway here, though perhaps a good rule of thumb would be that everyone (or almost everyone) should be treated about the same way in terms of the hit.
Yep, though I think it's a bit stronger than a rule of thumb unless you're splitting the spell.
-
I think the point here is that the player doesn't want his character to break the first law, thus he chooses a taken out result that reflects that. If the player doesn't want his character to break the first Law, then his character shouldn't do so. The narrative control of how someone is taken out lies with the player, I think this is only fair given how much hassle the Lawbreaker stunt as well as other consequences of breaking a Law of Magic are.
If the GM or other players do call shennanigans and decide that the death must result from being taken out, then I feel that it is only fair that they agree that the character does not get a Lawbreaker stunt at the very least.
-
I think the point here is that the player doesn't want his character to break the first law, thus he chooses a taken out result that reflects that. If the player doesn't want his character to break the first Law, then his character shouldn't do so. The narrative control of how someone is taken out lies with the player, I think this is only fair given how much hassle the Lawbreaker stunt as well as other consequences of breaking a Law of Magic are.
If the GM or other players do call shennanigans and decide that the death must result from being taken out, then I feel that it is only fair that they agree that the character does not get a Lawbreaker stunt at the very least.
Well, I think there are multiple sides to it, potentially. If there's a few vampires in a crowd of innocents, and a wizard hits the area with a 20-shift spell (we're assuming the wizard is pretty potent here), then at that point it can be a little much for everyone to be ok. On the other hand, letting a wizard do that and only afterwards insisting that means someone is dead and that a law was broken isn't fair either. We're assuming no fallout here, btw.
Though, I guess I do favor the narrative approach overall. Let's say there's a big bad with minion and innocents in a zone. Doing some Shock and Awe that does a lot of damage to the bad guys in the zone and declaring the innocents get shell-shocked and just run for their lives (that's how they are taken out) is pretty cool. Not allowing this makes such a thing pretty hard to do which would be a real shame. Part of the reason the game can be really light on hard mechanics like non-lethal damage and such is because it let's people get narrative control over stuff like this.
-
To me, deciding on your effects also includes setting the stakes. A non-lethal spell isn't going to turn deadly without a chance to choose otherwise (probably via compelling an appropriate aspect). Similarly, a lethal spell is going to kill if it does enough damage. It's not going to suddenly turn non-lethal...unless an appropriate aspect is involved again. Just don't describe the spell in lethal terms and then be surprised when it is lethal.
-
I think the point here is that the player doesn't want his character to break the first law, thus he chooses a taken out result that reflects that. If the player doesn't want his character to break the first Law, then his character shouldn't do so. The narrative control of how someone is taken out lies with the player, I think this is only fair given how much hassle the Lawbreaker stunt as well as other consequences of breaking a Law of Magic are.
The RAW definitely agrees with you, the problem is that common sense doesn't. More importently though, what should be the importent distinction for getting lawbreaker is not the effect, but the Intent, harry goes over this repeatedly in the novels. the reason that useing those types of magic taints you is not because theres some "dark side" that youve given into, its because in the moment you cast that spell you believed it was not only right, and proper that your targets, yes all of them, die but that you have the right to make that decision. Channeling magic through yourself in such a way marks you with its passing, and that is what the lawbreaker stunts are intended to represent.
The fact that the stunts as written are clunky, appear to be intended as punishing devices instead of roleplay devices and are poorly explained, just obfuscates the issue.
Doing some Shock and Awe that does a lot of damage to the bad guys in the zone and declaring the innocents get shell-shocked and just run for their lives (that's how they are taken out) is pretty cool. Not allowing this makes such a thing pretty hard to do which would be a real shame. Part of the reason the game can be really light on hard mechanics like non-lethal damage and such is because it let's people get narrative control over stuff like this.
Subtract 3 from the damage and add the aspect "Freaking Terrifying" to it, use the rules for targeting multiple enemies within a zone but not the whole zone, then invoke for effect for the mooks to flee. Aspects are the reason the system is so light on hard mechanics it even makes a point of saying so rather early on in Your Story.
Yes this requires a much higher complexity spell. Precision is Hard. I mean really think about it for a second what kind of effect are we talking about. you want to hit say 3 Black court vampires in the same zone as a bunch of humans, you want to kill the vampires and not kill the humans. Doesn't really matter what element your using, you would need to send three incredibly focused and intense beams of energy at the enemies to not hit the humans, if its a zone affect your going to hit everyone, and anything that will kill a black court vampire [baring there catches of course] is most definitely going to kill a human.
Harry spends several paragraphs detailing how focused and intense the beams of fire uses in , compared to his, are. which is a great example of someone using combat magic in the same zone as innocents. as they where protecting at the time.
-
More importently though, what should be the importent distinction for getting lawbreaker is not the effect, but the Intent, harry goes over this repeatedly in the novels.
Then I think that is precisely the distinction in allowing the player decide the taken out effect. If the intention is for the mortals to die, then the player must make that decision to kill when deciding the taken out effect. In this way, the player is clearly making the decision to accept the Lawbreaker. The taken out effect is, in essense, asking the player,"You want your character to kill the mortal with magic. Are you sure?"
-
Then I think that is precisely the distinction in allowing the player decide the taken out effect. If the intention is for the mortals to die, then the player must make that decision to kill when deciding the taken out effect. In this way, the player is clearly making the decision to accept the Lawbreaker. The taken out effect is, in essense, asking the player,"You want your character to kill the mortal with magic. Are you sure?"
No its not the Players intent that matters, its the Characters. If the Charecter didn't believe his spell could kill, then it can no more kill the vampires then the humans, you just cant have it both ways with a area of effect spell. Truely believing that a ball of fire can and should kill monsters but not humans, would require a level of insanity that might as well be represented by a stunt.
Now if you just got a bit more creative and made an aoe sunlight, or faith spell youd be on pretty solid ground for the kind of thing the op seems to be looking for.
-
Subtract 3 from the damage and add the aspect "Freaking Terrifying" to it, use the rules for targeting multiple enemies within a zone but not the whole zone, then invoke for effect for the mooks to flee. Aspects are the reason the system is so light on hard mechanics it even makes a point of saying so rather early on in Your Story.
Well, if we're going by the rules, you can't do that. Evocations are one of the following: maneuvers, attacks, blocks, or counter spells. They aren't multiple ones, by the rules. Also, invoking to compel multiple people to run away technically can't happen either unless the GM decides to do most of the compels on his own (which he can certainly do). Much simpler and more straightforward is just narrating an AoE so that (using your example below) 3 columns of fire burst up in loud explosions around the vampires, scaring and perhaps temporarily deafening all the humans nearby.
Of course, doing that when there's a hostage isn't a good idea. Bad guy will have some aspect like "X is my hostage" and invoke that as a human shield.
Yes this requires a much higher complexity spell. Precision is Hard. I mean really think about it for a second what kind of effect are we talking about. you want to hit say 3 Black court vampires in the same zone as a bunch of humans, you want to kill the vampires and not kill the humans. Doesn't really matter what element your using, you would need to send three incredibly focused and intense beams of energy at the enemies to not hit the humans, if its a zone affect your going to hit everyone, and anything that will kill a black court vampire [baring there catches of course] is most definitely going to kill a human.
Not having fallout means you have controlled your spell well, honestly. Just because Harry doesn't do this very well doesn't mean it isn't possible. Might mean you cut the power of the spell down a bit or you invoke an aspect or two to give you extra control, but if your discipline is greater than your shifts, then you are controlling it pretty well.
Harry spends several paragraphs detailing how focused and intense the beams of fire uses in , compared to his, are. which is a great example of someone using combat magic in the same zone as innocents. as they where protecting at the time.
That's a totally different issue. No one is using AoE attacks in that scenario. Using an AoE attack in your own zone is typically insane, since you'll get hit by it too (as well as all of your combat allies).
-
No its not the Players intent that matters, its the Characters. If the Charecter didn't believe his spell could kill, then it can no more kill the vampires then the humans, you just cant have it both ways with a area of effect spell. Truely believing that a ball of fire can and should kill monsters but not humans, would require a level of insanity that might as well be represented by a stunt.
Now if you just got a bit more creative and made an aoe sunlight, or faith spell youd be on pretty solid ground for the kind of thing the op seems to be looking for.
If there wasn't something special about killing humans, then you'd get a law violation if you killed non-humans too. It's not so crazy to be able to think a spell can kill vampires and not humans. It's a ball of magical fire, after all.
-
No its not the Players intent that matters, its the Characters. If the Charecter didn't believe his spell could kill, then it can no more kill the vampires then the humans, you just cant have it both ways with a area of effect spell.
The character could believe that his spell could kill, but the player could still intend for his character's spell not to. To your character, that his spell didn't kill the mortals would be the result that he did not really intend to kill the mortals although he used a lethal spell.
-
Fallout is what ends up killing bystanders and making you a Lawbreaker.
-
Part of the problem is a due to the system. If I want to take out some minor opposition (3 stress, will take a mild consequence) in one attack, I have to do 6 stress to him. If I was only doing (effective) 3 stress attacks, I'd have to hit him 3 times.
So if I want some sort of non-lethal weapon that will take these sorts of guys out in one go, I'm looking at something like weapon 5 to be sure the job gets done. The problem is that weapon 5 like being hit by a car. So we could totally see someone being killed when I run them over, but being killed by the weapon 5 magical tazer I made? not so much.
-
No its not the Players intent that matters, its the Characters. If the Charecter didn't believe his spell could kill, then it can no more kill the vampires then the humans, you just cant have it both ways with a area of effect spell. Truely believing that a ball of fire can and should kill monsters but not humans, would require a level of insanity that might as well be represented by a stunt.
The main issue is that it isn't a question of can it kill. It's fire, of course it can kill just about anything. The question is Should it kill. Do I have the right to take that person's life? Then it's totally reasonable to believe that you should kill monsters but not people.
Fallout is what ends up killing bystanders and making you a Lawbreaker.
I would call shenanigans on this. Sure, fallout is supposed to suck, it is not however supposed to randomly take away your character for no apparent reason. I suppose if it was crowded and the GM explained to the player before he chose to resolve the failed roll with fallout that he would be incurring the lawbreaker power then that might be justified, but otherwise it seems like the GM being a vindictive jerk.
So if I want some sort of non-lethal weapon that will take these sorts of guys out in one go, I'm looking at something like weapon 5 to be sure the job gets done. The problem is that weapon 5 like being hit by a car. So we could totally see someone being killed when I run them over, but being killed by the weapon 5 magical tazer I made? not so much.
The problem really is that comparison. Weapon:5 is supposed to be similar to getting hit by a truck, true, however what if I'm using a sleep compulsion (I'm aware that's breaking another law, but meh). What about non-lethal gas? What about bright light? These are examples of something that can only be non-lethal however I could still deal 10, 20, even 30 stress with these attacks. The damage comparison is meant to help one figure out what something might do, however it should not be used as a catch-all rule that encompasses everything. Just because I hit them with a Weapon:5 attack does not mean that I have to kill someone. The context of the attack should also be taken into account.
-
I would call shenanigans on this. Sure, fallout is supposed to suck, it is not however supposed to randomly take away your character for no apparent reason. I suppose if it was crowded and the GM explained to the player before he chose to resolve the failed roll with fallout that he would be incurring the lawbreaker power then that might be justified, but otherwise it seems like the GM being a vindictive jerk.
I think we all agree on that. His point was that when you have fallout it is uncontrolled magic meaning it can easily do stuff you didn't intend it to...like kill people. Of course the GM should point out before you decide it is fallout that this will/could result in the death of an innocent. That or it would be ok for the GM to rule fallout murdering innocents like that doesn't count as lawbreaking if it wasn't intended.
The problem really is that comparison. Weapon:5 is supposed to be similar to getting hit by a truck, true, however what if I'm using a sleep compulsion (I'm aware that's breaking another law, but meh). What about non-lethal gas? What about bright light? These are examples of something that can only be non-lethal however I could still deal 10, 20, even 30 stress with these attacks. The damage comparison is meant to help one figure out what something might do, however it should not be used as a catch-all rule that encompasses everything. Just because I hit them with a Weapon:5 attack does not mean that I have to kill someone. The context of the attack should also be taken into account.
Putting someone to sleep doesn't imply you have to invade their thoughts (and it certainly isn't enthralling). This can be done without breaking the 3rd law easily enough. In fact, one could theoretically do it either as a physical or mental attack, depending on what angle you wanted to go at.
Hmm, bright light is an interesting thing. I don't think you can easily do that as a stress inflicter. How can you take 3 stress from bright light? I could see a maneuver to temporarily blind someone that is then invoked for effect though. Or I could see it done as a consequence (which in a way, is the most interesting, since it makes sense as a consequence but not so much as a stress...getting zapped with light again and again doesn't seem like something that would result in your defeat).
Even a potentially lethal weapon 5 attack doesn't necessarily kill anyone. People get hit by cars and survive. Heck, people get hit by cars and can walk away with very few injuries -- not a DIRECT hit at a significant speed, mind you, but that's still a hit in game terms. Lethal hits by cars, in game terms, are probably ones with a bunch of extra shifts to hit. But let's consider that for a lot of attacks, you can probably pull your punches in one way or another. Seems to me that if you are doing that you should be able to essentially inflict fewer shifts. Not in the rules, afaik, but then again it doesn't have to be since the victor decides what "taken out" means in general terms (and the loser in specific terms). One of the elegant things about the system is that it doesn't devote a lot of time to make up rules for dealing with such things because it really isn't worth it. If a player wants someone to die by accident, they can DECIDE that happens (or it can be compelled), but there's no reason to ever force a death on the players just because someone got lucky and rolled well.
And, of course, if a GM wants to make an issue of it, that's easy enough with a scene aspect, hostages, or the like.
-
If a player wants someone to die by accident, they can DECIDE that happens (or it can be compelled), but there's no reason to ever force a death on the players
QFT
-
This whole thread is the reason I plan on using maneuvers more than actual attacks when there are civilians around.
Maneuver-> Invoke for effect. Most problems solved.
-
When it comes to Lawbreaker I think it's important that the GM tells the player if what they're doing could result in it *before* they actually take any action, so they can decide to do something else instead. So if you're going to use an AoE attack on a zone where there's a nasty vampire and a human for like 20 shifts the GM should say before the player is committed to doing that that it could result in the human dying, and thus the player would get Lawbreaker.
That said, I'm cool even with shooting guns and the like to have the PC say that the target shot isn't dead when taken out, assuming they're getting medical attention (if it's a mortal) and whatnot. There's going to then be the consequence that you've just shot someone and put them in the hospital, and people aren't usually too happy about that.
-
In effect, yes original poster, you probably shouldn't have Lawbreaking be an issue unless the player decided it should be so. I don't think that's a problem, though. Remember every player is also a Storyteller, most especially for their own character.
I had a story arc where I tempted one of my players with the 7th Law Lawbreaker Stunt. I made it juicy, too, she would have had secret control over a rather powerful Outsider spawned creature who coincidentally also took the shape of a very hot guy. She chose not to take it, in the end, but it was a powerful internal debate.
-
unless the player decided it should be so
The player decided it should be an issue when he cast a firestorm in the same area as a bunch of humans. [or icestorm element doesn't really matter.]
To your character, that his spell didn't kill the mortals would be the result that he did not really intend to kill the mortals although he used a lethal spell.
You want the spell to have two different effects for different targets, then use one that is the creatures cacth but harmless to humans, or pay the shifts of complexity for two different effects. Im sorry but getting lawbreaker is *not* a punishment its just the result of a characters actions. If your playing the kind of character who is doing this kind of thing you should either have wanted him to go of the deep end as the end of his story, or have planned ahead and left refresh available for the lawbreaker stunt, Hell you could probably even convince your gm to let you switch out a point of refinement for it so you can still keep playing if your character has just evolved into a more lethal direction then you had originally intended.
-
The player decided it should be an issue when he cast a firestorm in the same area as a bunch of humans. [or icestorm element doesn't really matter.]
I still think the player should have the choice for the character to face Lawbreaking or not. They should at least get a warning before they cast the spell, and if they choose not to heed, then you hit them with the Lawbreaker stunt, after appropriately narrating the feelings and the internal choice. Breaking one of the Law's of Magic is something that deserves the focus of the camera.
-
@Ophidimancer
I think some of the disconnect is the experience level of the players involved. my group have all been gaming for over a decade. I don't really feel its necessary to warn them if there going to get lawbreaker because i trust that if there casting such a spell they know it will probably happen, Certainly with people who don't know the system or are new to gaming in general you should tell them before they actually cast the spell that it will likely have such a result and then let them choose weather to use that spell anyway or use a different one.
-
People still get excited or caught up in the moment and forget. If you don't believe your group would have that issue then that's fine, but some people on these boards might use that as a justification to be cruel. I have been GMing and playing for nearly twenty years and the least experienced person in my group has probably a decade of experience with one of them having been gaming in eutero. I still wouldn't "surprise" them with something like that. Feelings could get hurt.
For that matter I would expect that people with more experience would also be quite capable storytellers and so would rather share that experience. Would they enjoy the "Hey you failed a roll. Surprise lawbreaker!" or do you think they'd rather find a dramatically appropriate moment and tell you "I burn him. I burn him to ash!" When experienced players want lawbreaker they'll tell you. I know I found a great moment to start crushing minds in my game.
-
I still wouldn't "surprise" them with something like that. Feelings could get hurt.
I in no way advocated a surprise. I would likely ask if he was sure he wanted to incinerate the room which has humans in it. I don't think the discussion is weather the player knows that his character would break the law with the spell, its weather or not someone can have a "smart spell" that only kills monsters.
Think about that for a moment, if your allowing the mechanics to work that way, the pc blaster who i assume is designed specifically to blow things up, walks into a hostage situation and just blows the entire room up. He doesn't have anything to fear hell just declare as his taken out condition that no damage was done to himself or his allies or any humans in the room.
I really don't understand this mentality that getting lawbreaker is a punitive measure. the GM isnt saying, hey you messed up Jim take a point of lawbreaker.
-
That's all we're saying about it. That we would likely warn the player that they were treading on thin ice by walking into the room and raining down fire on everything within it. I don't think anyone's advocating allowing the player to narrate a taken out of "the humans are perfectly fine, monsters incinerated."
I don't like the idea of lawbreaker as a punitive measure either (one of the reasons I argue so strongly against ever giving it to the player). Like I mentioned above it can be brilliant if played out dramatically and can be really fun for the player to play the rest of the game wondering if he's really the kind of person who does that kind of thing or spiraling into warlockery. That's a good time.
-
Killing with Magic or Otherwise: You opposition is going to be mostly mortals for my adventure which means there will be a risk of Law Breaker coming up. While you do have narrative control over your attacks there are times when this seems unreasonable. Every enemy will have a secret Stress Threshold which, if an attack brings them over that level they will die, this will only, however, apply to attacks of Weapon: 3 or greater.
This is the houserule our game's new GM has proposed as a way to deal with this issue. I see how it would likely never be a concern otherwise but I am also feeling that my character is now limited quite a bit by it. In fact with the skill point I just got from our last session I might have to up his Weapon Skill instead of his Lore just so I can be effective in the upcoming adventure. Especially since it was made clear we would likely be facing some mortal opposition.
-
Sounds like a talk to the GM sort of situation. Tell him that's not the kind of game you want to play and ask him to compromise. Find out if any of the other players feel hampered by this rule. If you can't come to an agreement I'd be tempted to smirkily outsmart the GM (by coming up with something that can only be non-lethal and then asking him how it could possibly kill), but that's cause I've got a mean streak.
Of course this brings up another point that really bothers me. Everyone seems to think that stress=damage. This is completely false. Consequences=damage. If someone doesn't take consequences then you haven't even hit them. The whole concept around stress is that a person is being worn down by the difficulty of the fight. If they don't have consequences then that speaks to their commitment to the fight. You could kill them when you take them out, but if they haven't taken any consequences you could just as easily narrate a result of "My fire blast flares in his face as he barely jumps back in time. He throws up his hands and says "Holy crap man I'm not paid enough for this.""
-
You know I didn't have a problem with it at first. In fact I thought it was a good idea. And I might be able to be convinced back the other way. It wasn't until I started considering all the implications due to this thread that I changed my mind a bit. Hmm. We will see what happens. Maybe it will be fine.
-
Killing with Magic or Otherwise: You opposition is going to be mostly mortals for my adventure which means there will be a risk of Law Breaker coming up. While you do have narrative control over your attacks there are times when this seems unreasonable. Every enemy will have a secret Stress Threshold which, if an attack brings them over that level they will die, this will only, however, apply to attacks of Weapon: 3 or greater.
The problem with a rule like this is that it really doesn't make a lot of sense. A broadsword is a weapon 2...but somehow something that can slice someone in two or pierce their heart can't kill them? Yet if you grab a two-hander then boom, they could be dead? There's a big level of inconsistency here.
I've sort of been advocating the narrativist side very heavily in this thread, since that seems the more right of it (and at first other people weren't doing it). I CAN see how sometimes it doesn't make a lot of sense to declare the attack didn't kill. Shooting people (weapon 2 with pistols) seems like a somewhat bizarre way to not kill them but still take them out. Once or twice doing that...not bad. Going into a building full of people and everyone shooting them with guns and no one dying...that could get so bizarre it is hard to take seriously, especially if it happened time and time again. So that can hurt the game.
That said, it IS up to the player, technically, and I think it is important to maintain player input here. Probably the best way would be with aspects. "This is a Lethal Attack" is something a GM can compel and a player could only get out of it by spending a fate point makes more sense if the player is going around making a lot of attacks with lethal weapons and saying they never kill anyone. That said, seems like magic is generally more flexible and some melee weapons are reasonably enough non-lethal (broad sword and the flat of the blade*). It does seem like something that needs to be discussed a bit, but in all cases a GM shouldn't spring lawbreaker on someone. I've been gaming for over 15 years and I know well the GM and a given player don't always see eye-to-eye. It's important to be clear about big things like this before they happen so you don't end up with a big fight (which sucks).
Hmm, I am still not convinced Invoking for Effect is a great solution. Taking people out (e.g. getting them to run or surrender) doing that is essentially using Invoke For Effect to produce a compel on multiple people if more than one is about...and that seems to be way too powerful for me. I like more using an zone-wide attack and describing it as an explosion centered on a bad guy...the shifts people away from that take are concussive force, noise, and so forth (won't kill anyone, but will scare the jujubes out of them causing them to get taken out). A properly narrated attack just seems like the better way to go here (though it poses still an interesting question for enchanted items...must they be created with lethality or non-lethality in mind?). If a player is putting forth effort to not kill people...then that should be what matters.
*Yeah, I know clubbing someone in the head isn't nearly as friendly as TV makes it out to be...nonetheless.
-
Think about that for a moment, if your allowing the mechanics to work that way, the pc blaster who i assume is designed specifically to blow things up, walks into a hostage situation and just blows the entire room up. He doesn't have anything to fear hell just declare as his taken out condition that no damage was done to himself or his allies or any humans in the room.
He could say that the "Taken Out" result is that "No Harm Done", but the stresses and Consequences taken would still be there.
The mechanics would likely work more along the lines of monsters dead, humans badly injured. Perhaps even "Critically Wounded", "Severe Burns", "Life threatening Injuries", just not "Dead".
-
He could say that the "Taken Out" result is that "No Harm Done", but the stresses and Consequences taken would still be there.
The problem is that there is absolutely nothing stopping the other party members who are likely all human, from taking the 15 stress hit, accepting his "taken out result" for them of "miraculously unharmed" and then wondering why the human npcs didn't do the same. Its absurd but no more so then the concept that conjured fire would be doing an unequal amount of physical damage based on the peoples presence or lack of a soul.
-
The problem is that there is absolutely nothing stopping the other party members who are likely all human, from taking the 15 stress hit, accepting his "taken out result" for them of "miraculously unharmed" and then wondering why the human npcs didn't do the same. Its absurd but no more so then the concept that conjured fire would be doing an unequal amount of physical damage based on the peoples presence or lack of a soul.
Well, if the PCs do that (from friendly fire), then they are not in the combat anymore for what it is worth. Not really the best idea to incapacitate your fellow party members in the middle or even the end of a fight. A taken out result that doesn't kill someone or even create a consequence isn't the same as nothing happening -- people taken out have been defeated.
-
Well, if the PCs do that (from friendly fire), then they are not in the combat anymore for what it is worth. Not really the best idea to incapacitate your fellow party members in the middle or even the end of a fight. A taken out result that doesn't kill someone or even create a consequence isn't the same as nothing happening -- people taken out have been defeated.
You're missing the point. The point that Mori is trying to make is that it is nonsensical to have such a finely targeted attack in the manner that has been argued; it is akin to dropping an anvil on an egg, and expecting it to have split into two even halves of eggshell, one with the yolk and one with the white. Dresden is not the 90's era US Military, where it was believed that you could perform surgery with smart bombs.
And it gets worse when you're arguing that you can kill the monsters in a zone, while leaving the humans unharmed; last I checked, most of the baddies in the Dresdenverse are structurally a great deal more resilient than your average human being, much less your average overweight American. MUCH more resilient. So, to return to the above metaphor, it's like dropping an anvil on a mix of eggs and walnuts... and expecting the eggs to survive--more or less--when the walnuts are utterly pulverized.
/common sense. We now return you to your regularly scheduled necroequestrisadism. ::)
-
The Taken Out Result is "Unharmed" but the humans may still suffer from the stresses and Consequences that they have taken. So while both the monsters and humans have "Badly Burnt", "Severely Wounded", etc as their Consequences, only the humans have "Unharmed" as their Taken Out effect, while the monsters are "Dead".
The point that seems to be missing is that the it would not nonsensical in the context of the DFRPG, however it may seem so in the "Real World". It is common sense.
-
I don't think that stress has to be representative of physical damage. It's an abstraction, after all.
So an evocation could be described as an attempt to paralyze or restrain movement and still inflict stress.
So a seven-shift evoker can actually use those seven shifts when he isn't aiming to kill.
At least, that's how I see it.
-
For area of effect the taken out effect has to be the same in my opinion and stated in adavance, so you could say all the npc were unconsious (enemies and hostages) this would not stop the fact through concequences you had scarred them horribly forever but that is not the same thing as killing so outside of the first law.
-
@Toturi No in that example the other party members take no consequences, they know there friend isnt going to harm them, so they choose not to take any, Nothing forces them to do so.
-
@Toturi No in that example the other party members take no consequences, they know there friend isnt going to harm them, so they choose not to take any, Nothing forces them to do so.
Be that as it may, my point remains however. DFRPG is not the "Real World".
-
You're missing the point. The point that Mori is trying to make is that it is nonsensical to have such a finely targeted attack in the manner that has been argued; it is akin to dropping an anvil on an egg, and expecting it to have split into two even halves of eggshell, one with the yolk and one with the white. Dresden is not the 90's era US Military, where it was believed that you could perform surgery with smart bombs.
And it gets worse when you're arguing that you can kill the monsters in a zone, while leaving the humans unharmed; last I checked, most of the baddies in the Dresdenverse are structurally a great deal more resilient than your average human being, much less your average overweight American. MUCH more resilient. So, to return to the above metaphor, it's like dropping an anvil on a mix of eggs and walnuts... and expecting the eggs to survive--more or less--when the walnuts are utterly pulverized.
/common sense. We now return you to your regularly scheduled necroequestrisadism. ::)
Well, I already gave an example of how this could work. If there's a big bad in a zone and a bunch of people, a spell could feasibly do say 10 shifts of damage to all by being an explosion centered on the big bad, doing 10 shifts of fiery death while doing 10 shifts of heat, concussion, shock, and awe to everyone else in the zone (e.g. not lethal). So it isn't inherently lacking on common sense. Now, naturally, if you describe a spell as filling an entire area of an inferno, then saying people survive relatively unscathed who were hit probably doesn't make a lot of sense. It really depends on the type of attack, how it is narrated, etc.
It would be nice, of course, if we could go to the books for examples of this sort of thing, but there are actually hardly any examples of area spells in them. Even when Harry is facing off against multiple enemies who start farther away from him, he seldom uses spells that aren't single-target (same with most other wizards).
-
Again, a point to consider is that if someone doesn't take consequences then technically you haven't even hit them. Perhaps all of your allies dove to the ground at the appropriate moment. They're shellshocked or exhausted (because they're definitely taken out) but technically unharmed. By the rules this is a completely appropriate way of dealing with this.
A smart GM will however discourage it's abuse easily. "Oh look, your blast has alerted the people in the next room. They rush in. What? No it's not a new scene, everyone's still taken out. Well that sucks now doesn't it."
Another thing to consider as per the original post is that the players get to decide whether they take consequences. They do not get to decide whether bystanders take consequences.
-
A smart GM will however discourage it's abuse easily. "Oh look, your blast has alerted the people in the next room. They rush in. What? No it's not a new scene, everyone's still taken out. Well that sucks now doesn't it."
Actually if his players are all in on this, then the GM has bigger problems than what you see as an abuse of the rules.
-
I don't necessarily see it as an abuse of the rules, only that it is a viable bit of rules that could be abused. If it happens occasionally I have no problem, if the wizard walks in and rains fire (or explodes) every room then that might be an issue.
-
Applying the Lawbreaker stunt can have huge consequences for a player character, up to and inclduing suddenly becoming an NPC. (Let's face it, a lot of spellcasters play on very low refresh.) I would never, ever force a lawbreaker stunt on a PC without explicit out of character buy-in from the player, any more than I would kill a PC without discussing it with the player.
No, not even with a Compel. Compels are there to create complications, not to radically and permanently alter the character.
That said, if the PC throws around a bunch of potentially-lethal evocations on mortals it may be appropriate to apply compels on his high concept and even request aspect changes to reflect how the PC constantly skirts the law and people are beginning to look at him suspiciously
-
Guys, i'd just like to point out that the rules do say "within reason" meaning if a 20 shift spell is dropped on a zone as in intended to kill the monsters (who are much more resiliant than the humans) its going to crush everyone in the zone, if a 4 shift attack is like a hand granade a 20 shift attack is like a mini nuke, it isnt "within reason" for people to survive that. As long as the player is aware that their action will result in the lawbreaker stunt i'm in agreement that they should get it.
-
Applying the Lawbreaker stunt can have huge consequences for a player character, up to and inclduing suddenly becoming an NPC. (Let's face it, a lot of spellcasters play on very low refresh.) I would never, ever force a lawbreaker stunt on a PC without explicit out of character buy-in from the player, any more than I would kill a PC without discussing it with the player.
No, not even with a Compel. Compels are there to create complications, not to radically and permanently alter the character.
That said, if the PC throws around a bunch of potentially-lethal evocations on mortals it may be appropriate to apply compels on his high concept and even request aspect changes to reflect how the PC constantly skirts the law and people are beginning to look at him suspiciously
This comes down largely to GM style, and I for the most part agree with it. That being said I would also not allow my players to take actions without the possibility of consequence. I don't kill a character unless I have permission from the player OR they do something very stupid (note that I am the new GM Humannoyed mentioned, and for this particular story I have warned the players that death will be a possibility and gave them the opportunity to opt out of the 'hard mode' nature I'm intending to run the game with).
I saw a little bit ago on this thread the argument that stress is an abstract and so shouldn't be greatly considered, which I agree with, but Weapon ratings are concrete with specific rules for what they represent. Anything Weapon: 3 or higher is the equivalent damage causing potential of an Assault Rifle, it would be ridiculous to ignore that in my opinion.
Also, so far as the Law Breaker stunt is concerned, it's worth noting that nowhere in its description does it suggest that it's meant as anything other than a penalty for incautious Wizards, and it's not unique in that respect. In the Changling Template description it suggests the threat of a spontaneous new power NPCing a character and that this is a risk the player accepts when making the character. Of course it should never be done unless it somehow improves the story (which is unlikely if it upsets the players greatly) but that is the way that the rules are constructed.
-
Guys, i'd just like to point out that the rules do say "within reason" meaning if a 20 shift spell is dropped on a zone as in intended to kill the monsters (who are much more resiliant than the humans) its going to crush everyone in the zone, if a 4 shift attack is like a hand granade a 20 shift attack is like a mini nuke, it isnt "within reason" for people to survive that. As long as the player is aware that their action will result in the lawbreaker stunt i'm in agreement that they should get it.
It would be within reason if the spell was intended to crush everyone in the zone. But it would not be so if the spell was intended to kill only the monsters. Thus it should be well "within reason" for other people in the zone to survive that.Also, so far as the Law Breaker stunt is concerned, it's worth noting that nowhere in its description does it suggest that it's meant as anything other than a penalty for incautious Wizards, and it's not unique in that respect. In the Changling Template description it suggests the threat of a spontaneous new power NPCing a character and that this is a risk the player accepts when making the character.
It is also worth noting that nowhere in its description does it suggest that it's meant as anything other than a consequence of a deliberate decision on the part of the player. In the Changling template, it is the same, the player has to decide for his character to make that Choice as well.
-
It is also worth noting that nowhere in its description does it suggest that it's meant as anything other than a consequence of a deliberate decision on the part of the player. In the Changling template, it is the same, the player has to decide for his character to make that Choice as well.
Compels are listed as valid causes for picking up powers for Changelings.
-
I saw a little bit ago on this thread the argument that stress is an abstract and so shouldn't be greatly considered, which I agree with, but Weapon ratings are concrete with specific rules for what they represent. Anything Weapon: 3 or higher is the equivalent damage causing potential of an Assault Rifle, it would be ridiculous to ignore that in my opinion.
As was also mentioned earlier though, if someone doesn't take consequences then you have missed. Doesn't matter whether you're throwing a punch (weapon:0) or shooting them with an assault rifle (weapon:3) or even hitting them with a mack truck (weapon:5) if they don't take consequences then they are perfectly justified in saying that you missed them entirely.
Also, so far as the Law Breaker stunt is concerned, it's worth noting that nowhere in its description does it suggest that it's meant as anything other than a penalty for incautious Wizards, and it's not unique in that respect. In the Changling Template description it suggests the threat of a spontaneous new power NPCing a character and that this is a risk the player accepts when making the character. Of course it should never be done unless it somehow improves the story (which is unlikely if it upsets the players greatly) but that is the way that the rules are constructed.
Actually if you look at other places in the book it suggests that it could actually be used for advancement if a caster wants to go that way. It's like a specialization that is slightly more flexible in some ways and slightly less in others. Also if one is subtle in your aspect changes (adding the lawbreaker element but keeping them fundamentally similar) then one could continue to play said character in much the same way (relying more and more heavily on the lawbreaking of course) and your aspects would become powerful weapons when you chose to break the laws.
-
As was also mentioned earlier though, if someone doesn't take consequences then you have missed. Doesn't matter whether you're throwing a punch (weapon:0) or shooting them with an assault rifle (weapon:3) or even hitting them with a mack truck (weapon:5) if they don't take consequences then they are perfectly justified in saying that you missed them entirely.
And even if they DO take consequences from an attack with a mack truck, that consequence could be merely 'abraded hands' from their desperate dive out of the way. The truck missed, but they still took stress and a minor consequence.
Heck, they could take the severe consequence 'shattered ankle and foot' and say that that's all that was in the truck's path. They dove out of the way just a fraction of a second too late, or inches too short, and the truck impacted / drove over their foot. They'll need medical attention to make sure it doesn't get infected, but by no means should they just up and die from that.
-
Heck, they could take the severe consequence 'shattered ankle and foot' and say that that's all that was in the truck's path... They'll need medical attention to make sure it doesn't get infected, but by no means should they just up and die from that.
Unless they are in an episode of "Bones" and then there would totally be a bone-related disorder that could cause that. But guess what? The character's not in an episode of "Bones." And that is all right.
-
This is one of those things that, as a GM, I've just had to live with. After my PC wizard read the books and realized "hey, if I just specialize in Spirit Evocations I can always phrase things so that it's entirely reasonable for mortals to survive" I just gave up. In my opinion it's better to play this one generously so the PCs don't feel constrained in their choice of elements.
-
Yeah, you can always phrase things so that it's reasonable that mortals survive, but then the GM just throws you a fate point to compel you to use potentially lethal force on an NPC that really deserves dying...He didn't die, but try telling that to the holier than thou wizard friend I'm stuck with...I mean it was only potentially life threatening.
-
There's always the compel angle which I don't think anyone thinks is invalid.
Of course, the PC could always hand you a fate point to obviously just knock the mortal out then, after combat ends, saunter over, kick in his skull, and ask for the fate point back.
-
This is one of those things that, as a GM, I've just had to live with. After my PC wizard read the books and realized "hey, if I just specialize in Spirit Evocations I can always phrase things so that it's entirely reasonable for mortals to survive" I just gave up. In my opinion it's better to play this one generously so the PCs don't feel constrained in their choice of elements.
I can't help but think a lot of the time those will either break other laws of magic, or some monsters might end up extra resistant to those types of attacks, depending on what you do.
-
There's always the compel angle which I don't think anyone thinks is invalid.
Of course, the PC could always hand you a fate point to obviously just knock the mortal out then, after combat ends, saunter over, kick in his skull, and ask for the fate point back.
The problem with the Compel method is that most Wizards run at 1 refresh, which means that your choice is either
1) Wait till they have no fate chips and say, "Congrats, you're an NPC now." or
2) Do it when they do have fate chips and say, "And that will be a one fate remain a PC tax."
Personally, as a player, I would much prefer there to be a rule so that I could at least have some control over whether I risk killing someone.
-
The key to Compels is to only use them when it makes the story MORE INTERESTING. For everyone involved, preferably, but particularly for those directly involved.
And removing a character from player control is almost never more interesting for that player than the alternative.
-
The key to Compels is to only use them when it makes the story MORE INTERESTING. For everyone involved, preferably, but particularly for those directly involved.
And removing a character from player control is almost never more interesting for that player than the alternative.
Moreover Compels can dictate the general type of action, not the action itself.
You could compel of course that NPC is not worth of sparing but you cannot say the PC uses his magical wrath. The PC can simply crush the NPC's skull with his feet or strangle him to death.
-
Sorry, double post....
However I just add an advice to the subject of the thread:
"Discuss the matter in the group and decide"
If the group prefer a sort of G.I. Joe game in which civilian cannot be victims, it's fine.
If the group prefer a more consistent approach, it's fine too.
This is something which the group must agree about in advance.
-
The key to Compels is to only use them when it makes the story MORE INTERESTING. For everyone involved, preferably, but particularly for those directly involved.
And removing a character from player control is almost never more interesting for that player than the alternative.
The difficulty in that lies in the fact that interesting stories come out of interesting conflict, and interesting conflict comes out of risk. If there is no possibility of loss of life or free will any conflict, then eventually everything becomes pale. Harry's story and his temptation toward power are only interesting because he may eventually lose out to that temptation, in your system that wouldn't be a possibility.
-
Not entirely...compels could certainly lead to a situation where the wizard might choose to kill with magic. Though I wouldn't normally* make it a choice between 'spending a fate point to resist' or 'gain lawbreaker status'. I'd prefer a subtler chain of compels where the choice might end up being 'let the bad guy get away' or 'take out a human to get to the bad guy'.
*One potential exception is sponsored magic from a sponsor with negative goals. Hellfire for example - if you take it and use it consistently, sooner or later it will compel you towards a position to kill. That meets one of the sponsor's goals after all...potentially more than one.
-
Also, compels are supposed to be negotiated, not imposed. If the GM says "you want him dead, you know you want him dead, if you go through with it you will fry him with your magic, not knock him out" or something similar the PC could negotiate it to "realizing that my emotions are running out of control I intentionally miss with my blast of fire, knowing that had I not, I would have burned him to a crisp."
If a GM just waits for a PC to run out of fate points then compels them to become an NPC with no alternatives that GM is horrible.
-
I think Kemmlerite Necromancy and Hellfire are really NPC powers there is no way to remain a PC when using powers that are naturally corrupting and also fatal the wardens find out, you could play such a character but a GM would be right to compel you to become a monster because that is one of the main aims of the sponsor.
-
If a GM just waits for a PC to run out of fate points then compels them to become an NPC with no alternatives that GM is horrible.
I don't disagree with that, which is why I advocate a system for law breaking that has nothing to do with compels. Otherwise, even with a good GM, it wouldn't necessarily be a matter of waiting till the PC runs out, but rather having the appropriate dramatic moment come up when the player happened to be out. Either way it's an unacceptable situation, but I feel that there being no risk associated with unrestrained combat magic to be unacceptable as well.
-
but I feel that there being no risk associated with unrestrained combat magic to be unacceptable as well.
Meh, I don't see why there should be risks for magic over and above, for instance, Supernatural Might or a bigass machine gun. The only reason that the topic keeps coming up is because First Law violations are such a nifty way of reining in Evocation, which can easily become game-wreckingly overpowered.
IMO the compel system already exists in the RAW to so that, in conjunction with a Wizard's high concept, a GM can keep them from being too irresponsible with their spells. One of the best parts of FATE systems, to me, is the cooperative nature of the game. By engaging your player in negotiating compels instead of enforcing a hard and fast rule you can make sure that your players understand how the Laws complicate their character's lives. If there is a hard and fast rule it encourages players to work around it, and find ways to exploit it. Compels encourage the player to engage with the game as a story, rather than a mechanical system.
-
I don't disagree with that, which is why I advocate a system for law breaking that has nothing to do with compels. Otherwise, even with a good GM, it wouldn't necessarily be a matter of waiting till the PC runs out, but rather having the appropriate dramatic moment come up when the player happened to be out. Either way it's an unacceptable situation, but I feel that there being no risk associated with unrestrained combat magic to be unacceptable as well.
Except...
A weapon:8 evocation taking the form of a giant ball of fire comes flying at you when you're already scraped, bruised, and running on your last legs.
You manage to dodge the discipline roll down to a single shift, meaning you're about to take 9 stress.
Your minor, moderate, and severe consequences are already occupied, and have only 2 of your 4 physical stress boxes remaining.
You take the extreme consquence 'horrible burns', change one of your aspects to 'grotesque appearance', take one stress, and CONCEDE. You'll survive, though, assuming you get medical attention in a reasonable amount of time, and no one takes the opportunity to just up and slit your throat.
-
The difficulty in that lies in the fact that interesting stories come out of interesting conflict, and interesting conflict comes out of risk. If there is no possibility of loss of life or free will any conflict, then eventually everything becomes pale. Harry's story and his temptation toward power are only interesting because he may eventually lose out to that temptation, in your system that wouldn't be a possibility.
A good player takes that risk on for themselves. A while ago I was playing a character that was all about grey mind magic (mostly because she was apprenticed to a circle neuromancer). She honestly wanted to help others and honestly thought she could do it with mind magic. Then a warlock in the area started working with outsiders and wound up hurting some of the people that she loved. I spent a couple of turns preparing, then reached out and crushed his mind (taking the lawbreaker power). It was a great story, and since I was phasing the character out it allowed me a great villain with connections to the group when I was GMing.
-
Except...
A weapon:8 evocation taking the form of a giant ball of fire comes flying at you when you're already scraped, bruised, and running on your last legs.
You manage to dodge the discipline roll down to a single shift, meaning you're about to take 9 stress.
Your minor, moderate, and severe consequences are already occupied, and have only 2 of your 4 physical stress boxes remaining.
You take the extreme consquence 'horrible burns', change one of your aspects to 'grotesque appearance', take one stress, and CONCEDE. You'll survive, though, assuming you get medical attention in a reasonable amount of time, and no one takes the opportunity to just up and slit your throat.
Three difficulties with that though.
1) Nit picky I know, but I would never have an opponent to the players take an Extreme Consequence, that's hero territory.
2) I guess I may not have mentioned this earlier but I would allow a 2-4 over the stress track window before I enforced the 'nope, he's just dead' rule.
3) We're talking about Taken Out mechanics, not Concession mechanics. No one here never said that you can't survive a Weapon: 8 or Weapon: 8000 attack if some how you manage not to be taken out by it.
-
Any 'Taken Out' result in a situation that was not capable of filling the stress track and all remaining consequences IS a Concession.
2-4 over the stress track is taking a moderate or severe consequence, not getting taken out, let alone necessarily killed.
That 'Concession' of the horrible burns and disfigurement? It'd also be a reasonable 'Taken Out' result, had the attack forced that.
-
Meh, I don't see why there should be risks for magic over and above, for instance, Supernatural Might or a bigass machine gun. The only reason that the topic keeps coming up is because First Law violations are such a nifty way of reining in Evocation, which can easily become game-wreckingly overpowered.
But its not just for reining in Evocation from being to powerful for the game, its for making the game work on the same assumptions as the books. It is a fact that in the books, lethal force with magic is objectively worse than doing the same thing with a machine gun. Hurling around lethal force with magic all the time in the game and not treating it as any more serious than doing the same with a gun is going outside of the Dresdenverse. Nothing wrong with it, per se, but if you told me we were going to be playing a game of the Dresden Files, it would break my expectations for Lawbreaker to be ignored just because its inconvenient.
-
It is a fact that in the books, lethal force with magic is objectively worse than doing the same thing with a machine gun. Hurling around lethal force with magic all the time in the game and not treating it as any more serious than doing the same with a gun is going outside of the Dresdenverse.
That's because the potential Bad Things (tm) made possible by throwing around potentially lethal magics are objectively worse than doing the same thing with a machine gun, not because they're more likely, which is what I believe DFJunkie was referring to.
-
What I've been trying to say is this: does forcing a PC to take Lawbreaker and become an NPC just because you roll poorly and he rolls well actually serve the story in any way? I'd say probably not. The alternative option, forcing the player to choose between becoming a Lawbreaker and accepting a tactical disadvantage, potentially a deadly one, serve the story? I'd say yes.
-
What I've been trying to say is this: does forcing a PC to take Lawbreaker and become an NPC just because you roll poorly and he rolls well actually serve the story in any way? I'd say probably not. The alternative option, forcing the player to choose between becoming a Lawbreaker and accepting a tactical disadvantage, potentially a deadly one, serve the story? I'd say yes.
I'd say the only way compelling to force breaking a law would be ok is if the player has a fate point to resist the compel, but I agree the better way to go is the lawbreaker or disadvantage if the compel is accepted.
-
Any 'Taken Out' result in a situation that was not capable of filling the stress track and all remaining consequences IS a Concession.
2-4 over the stress track is taking a moderate or severe consequence, not getting taken out, let alone necessarily killed.
No. Concessions are something that happen before someone is taken out. Concessions are a negotiation between opposing forces. A taken out result is completely dictated by the opposing forces and should be potentially worse then the concession. Even if you hadn't taken any consequences Someone who took you out would be well within their right to say you're dead. If you concede that isn't usually the case.
-
Also, compels are supposed to be negotiated, not imposed. If the GM says "you want him dead, you know you want him dead, if you go through with it you will fry him with your magic, not knock him out" or something similar the PC could negotiate it to "realizing that my emotions are running out of control I intentionally miss with my blast of fire, knowing that had I not, I would have burned him to a crisp."
If a GM just waits for a PC to run out of fate points then compels them to become an NPC with no alternatives that GM is horrible.
I agree. Generally compelling someone when they don't have the fate points to refuse the compel is wankery of the highest order. What's the point? It's not an interesting choice if you don't have a choice. I guess there might be a rare case where the GM isn't being a douche and it really fit the fiction that the PC was so bruised an battered that they just can't resist something. But, the choice to accept (or refuse) a compel is what I find interesting about the game. For my part, I almost never refuse a good compel no matter how many Fate chips i have.
-
I agree. Generally compelling someone when they don't have the fate points to refuse the compel is wankery of the highest order. What's the point? It's not an interesting choice if you don't have a choice. I guess there might be a rare case where the GM isn't being a douche and it really fit the fiction that the PC was so bruised an battered that they just can't resist something. But, the choice to accept (or refuse) a compel is what I find interesting about the game. For my part, I almost never refuse a good compel no matter how many Fate chips i have.
On the other hand, if you don't compel someone who doesn't have any fate points, they will never have any fate points. It's like saying to a wizard after he spends his one fate chip on a roll, "Well, looks like nothing else interesting will happen to you this session."
-
On the other hand, if you don't compel someone who doesn't have any fate points, they will never have any fate points. It's like saying to a wizard after he spends his one fate chip on a roll, "Well, looks like nothing else interesting will happen to you this session."
You know, you're right. I was thinking about compelling someone with something like "You become and NPC." I guess I mean you don't hit someone hard when they're down. If they're out of Fate, I'd compel things that add complications to the storyline, without challenging the character concept or taking away things they might care about. I would reward them for bringing things to the game that make my job as GM easy, but I wouldn't put the screws to them until they could fight back.
Also, I'm sure someone will point out that they'll get a Fate refresh at some point, so I'll just mention it, though it doesn't change my response.
-
This might be a good time for fate point debt, if a GM compels someone with no fate points I would let that person go into fate point debt so they can still resist but will cost them a compel in the future or one less fate point at the next refresh.
-
No. Concessions are something that happen before someone is taken out. Concessions are a negotiation between opposing forces. A taken out result is completely dictated by the opposing forces and should be potentially worse then the concession. Even if you hadn't taken any consequences Someone who took you out would be well within their right to say you're dead. If you concede that isn't usually the case.
Here is the relevant section:
Finally, a character cannot be saved from a
roll that takes him out by offering a concession.
You have to offer the concession before the roll
that takes out your character. Otherwise, it’s
cheating the opponent out of victory.
-
No. Concessions are something that happen before someone is taken out. Concessions are a negotiation between opposing forces. A taken out result is completely dictated by the opposing forces and should be potentially worse then the concession. Even if you hadn't taken any consequences Someone who took you out would be well within their right to say you're dead. If you concede that isn't usually the case.
Here is the relevant section:
Finally, a character cannot be saved from a
roll that takes him out by offering a concession.
You have to offer the concession before the roll
that takes out your character. Otherwise, it’s
cheating the opponent out of victory.
It might not have been perfectly worded, but what I meant to indicate is that if you award a 'taken out' result in a situation when instead taking a consequence (or several consequences, even) was and option, and sufficient to prevent it, then the 'taken out' result was voluntary, as the individual with narrative control of that character chose to allow it. Which is, fundamentally, a Concession.
-
It might not have been perfectly worded, but what I meant to indicate is that if you award a 'taken out' result in a situation when instead taking a consequence (or several consequences, even) was and option, and sufficient to prevent it, then the 'taken out' result was voluntary, as the individual with narrative control of that character chose to allow it. Which is, fundamentally, a Concession.
Nope.
The main difference between being Taken Out and Concessions is just who decide the doom of the defeated contender, if himself or the victor.
Concessions are "conditional peaces", while Taken Out result are "unconditional ones".
The point is not who decides the outcome of the fight, but who decides the consequences of that outcome.
-
If you take out an enemy you decide there exit whether it is death or just defeat, so you can decide that someone you took out could be paralysed for lifem killed or just unconsious. If you decide that a person is unconsious but have all ready lost an arm this will not stop them dieing if they do not get medical treatment so to avoid lawbreaker you would have to choose the out unconsious and then either treat them or finish them in a mundane manner so they don't die by magic.
-
It might not have been perfectly worded, but what I meant to indicate is that if you award a 'taken out' result in a situation when instead taking a consequence (or several consequences, even) was and option, and sufficient to prevent it, then the 'taken out' result was voluntary, as the individual with narrative control of that character chose to allow it. Which is, fundamentally, a Concession.
Fundamentally it is one person conceding, or surrendering to the other. However there are definite mechanical differences between that and a capital-C Concession.
-
Fundamentally it is one person conceding, or surrendering to the other. However there are definite mechanical differences between that and a capital-C Concession.
Can you point out the references? The only mechanics I'm aware are for Taking someone out (usually 23+ shifts of total damage) and Concessions (anything less than 23 shifts).
-
I think Sinker was referring to what Tedronai told about a character who voluntarily choose to be taken out instead on taking consequences.
The character is still Taken Out by a mechanical POV, but he has just chosen that.
-
I think Sinker was referring to what Tedronai told about a character who voluntarily choose to be taken out instead on taking consequences.
The character is still Taken Out by a mechanical POV, but he has just chosen that.
Either you're using "voluntarily taken out" as a synonym for concession, or I'm not following.
From a mechanical PoV, there are two methods of leaving / ending a conflict: Taken Out and Conceding. Both end the conflict, the real difference is in narrative control. A character who is taken out loses control of any say in how the conflict ends. A character who concedes shares control (negotiates) with his opponent. Narratively, the ways those can play out are nearly unlimited. Mechanically, I'm only aware of the two.
-
Yes, that was my point.
There's a misunderstanding cause of the posts' order.
Read this from Tedronai:
It might not have been perfectly worded, but what I meant to indicate is that if you award a 'taken out' result in a situation when instead taking a consequence (or several consequences, even) was and option, and sufficient to prevent it, then the 'taken out' result was voluntary, as the individual with narrative control of that character chose to allow it. Which is, fundamentally, a Concession
and the following responses.
-
I think Sinker was referring to what Tedronai told about a character who voluntarily choose to be taken out instead on taking consequences.
The character is still Taken Out by a mechanical POV, but he has just chosen that.
Which, aside from the timing, is mechanically indistinguishable from a Concession negotiation of "we'll just go with whatever [the victor] suggests as the result"
From a narrative, perspective, however, it is clearly not in the spirit of a true 'Taken Out' result, in that there is CHOICE for the individual submitting to the result
-
Nope. ;)
Concessions are negotiated by all the group.
Taken out is decided by just the victor.
-
Isn't a concession basically a special form of being taken out?
The difference I see with regular Taken Out and Conceding is that Conceding opens the floor to the group to decide an acceptable Concession instead of only just the opponent. Thus since the opponent(or the would be victor) is part of this group, all he needs to do is to hold to a hardline position.
-
Nope. ;)
Concessions are negotiated by all the group.
Taken out is decided by just the victor.
And for it to be truly in the spirit of a 'Taken Out' result, there can be no meaningful choice involved by the individual responsible for the submitting character
If that individual, then, chooses not to take consequences knowing that neglecting to do so will push their stress beyond capacity, then the outcome is not truly in the spirit of a 'Taken Out' result, and closer to a Concession where the negotiation can be boiled down to "we should just go with what [the victor] says"
-
One of the guidelines is that a consequence has to be taken as a result of the conflict before the concession is offered.
-
One of the guidelines is that a consequence has to be taken as a result of the conflict before the concession is offered.
Not that I'm contesting this, but I don't see how it meaningfully impacts the discussion.
The fundamental defining factor of a 'Taken Out' result is the lack of choice by the victim of the attack
The fundamental defining factor of a 'Concession' is, instead, it's voluntary nature
Thus, voluntarily submitting to a 'Taken Out' result (by pointedly neglecting to take on a consequence that would allow one to avoid that result) is, in fact, more in line, from a narrative perspective, fundamentally, with a 'Concession'
-
In any case, I don't see the reason which can make a character to choose a Taken Out instead on taking Consequences and/or Concede.
Apart from the obvious risk you could be killed or similar, each Consequence is a Fate Point which the Character gains at the end of the Conflict.
Moreover Concessions let the character have power to decide the outcome and so to lessen the effects of the defeat.
-
The original interjection that sparked this little derailment was in regards to a statement by Tallyrand (sp?) with regards to a house-rule that would force a 'Taken Out' result (of dead/dying) in a situation where an attack with a sufficient weapons value resulted in a specified degree of stress beyond the stress capacity of the target, but with no regard to the consequence slots available to that target, thus resulting in what amounts to a forced Concession of death...which is an oxymoron, and punitive at that
-
Can you point out the references? The only mechanics I'm aware are for Taking someone out (usually 23+ shifts of total damage) and Concessions (anything less than 23 shifts).
You are getting confused with effects that guarantee a takeout, and being taken out itself. You are taken out as soon as stress goes past your last stress box and you don't use a consequence to reduce it back below that threshold. You can concede any time, as long as you haven't been taken out.
Page 203 YS defines being taken out as having damage that exceeds a characters stress boxes, if you need the reference. There are other references in there that say the same thing.
-
thus resulting in what amounts to a forced Concession of death...which is an oxymoron, and punitive at that
I agree.
Consequences who can be narratively explained should be always allowed regardless of the weapon value. I think you got the point with the truck and "abraded hands" example.
-
Not that I'm contesting this, but I don't see how it meaningfully impacts the discussion.
Well, this is how I see it:
1) The conditions of the loss has to represent a clear and decisive disadvantage to the character.
2) Having already taken a moderate consequence, it counts as such a disadvantage, thus there is no further need to specify anything further as terms for the concession.
-
Not to keep beating a dead horse, but I would like to put forward a couple of example scenarios to contrast "taken out" vs "concession", both for general edification as well as to check that I have it right. :)
Lets assume I start this exchange with a 4 box stress track, no stress and no consequences.
BBG is winding up and looks like he will lay a major smack down on me.
I don't think I can proactively concede at this point because I have not taken any consequences, although it looks like I might be able to negotiate a consequence as part of the concession if everyone at the table feels it is reasonable. I would need to do this before the attack is rolled.
Lets say the guy hits me for 8 stress. Now I know that the real boss BBG is still to come so I don't want to go in to that hurt and I don't think this guy is trying to kill me, just put me down. I could choose to be taken out right now and not suffer any consequences at all (at the risk of whatever "taken out" narration the GM chooses to impose).
I could take consequences, stay in the fight, and then clearly have the option to concede in the next exchange if I want since I have taken consequences.
Clearly not a very macho character, but does this capture the RAW?
-
You can consede at any point if you think your getting into a fight you can't win you say I want to concede this fight by running away and the gm could counter with ok but you have to take the minor concequence exhausted from running so hard or he could say no the fight would continue and to escape you would have to pass a athletics check or several athletics and endurance tests in a prolonged running scene. If you get taken out you get no say in the outcome and so it will be the GM's carte blanche (or others PC's in PvP) on the outcome.
-
Lets say the guy hits me for 8 stress. Now I know that the real boss BBG is still to come so I don't want to go in to that hurt and I don't think this guy is trying to kill me, just put me down. I could choose to be taken out right now and not suffer any consequences at all (at the risk of whatever "taken out" narration the GM chooses to impose).
I could take consequences, stay in the fight, and then clearly have the option to concede in the next exchange if I want since I have taken consequences.
Clearly not a very macho character, but does this capture the RAW?
Yes, except that part of the "taken out" narration could be the GM choosing to impose a consequence anyway. It you're taken out, the GM is within his rights to both give you a moderate consequence _and_ have your PC get captured or something.
Now that said, if the only way to avoid being taken out is to fill up all your Consequence boxes, then sure, it might be worth your time to just take the hit and let the GM take out your PC. Effectively dare the GM to kill your PC. It's probably a pretty safe bluff.
-
Effectively dare the GM to kill your PC. It's probably a pretty safe bluff.
Hehe...that depends on the GM. ;D
-
Hehe...that depends on the GM. ;D
You need to set up the situation properly.
Here's an example of how to do it. (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0009.html)