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.
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).
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!"Yeah, this should really be on the Law Talk sticky.
That said, I'm still keeping all of them.
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).
if you agree that the rules hamper the fun of playing a wizardNope. 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;
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.
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.
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.
Potestas, what aspect of the Laws of Magic do like? What would you be willing to keep in your game?
I will agree with some of the other posters and say that without the laws as-is... the game would feel different tha the Dresdenverse we know and love.
One idea to grease the Laws would be to create penalties for I fractions other than death. Perhaps create a 3 strikes rule for the Laws or something.
This is a series and world where breaking the laws of magic has a direct and tangible consequence, and removing the refresh cost runs counter to that. It's supposed to be a penalty. You might as well remove the limit on consequences because you don't want to play a game where getting injured makes it harder to do things.
I think the entire idea is wizard killing fun. So as far as this conversation goes, i am simply making them laws like mortal laws. given suffient reason or if no one is around to tell they can be violated. I am also going to assume higher up wizards break them with impunity enforcing them simply to ensure their own power. The blackstaff breaks them with no ill effects, everyone says its the staff but there is no ingame or inbook verification of this. Moreover even if you only allow one wizard to activily defend all wizards your order would be doomed long before it reached the 20th century. So for my game they are do as I say not as I do. the older wizards are strong enough that no one will question what they do unless they go overboard. Kind of like how ancient mi thought Harry didnt have the wisdom to be a member. he didnt know enough when to not break the laws. thats how I am going ot play it anyway. more fun that way
This is the only thing I'm disagreeing with you about. I kind of despise the Lawbreaker power. Being forced to change one of your Aspects is an awesome way to represent having broken a Law: it changes a fundamental part of your character, you're pushed further down the dark path you started on (compels), you get hounded by wardens (compels), and you can be better at breaking that specific Law (Invokes, occasionally utilizing Taran's Sponsor Debt method). If a player in my game were to deliberately break a Law, I would make them change an Aspect, but I definitely wouldn't force them to take the Power itself, because losing a single refresh on a wizard is devastating and usually makes the character an NPC. The gamebook posits that you "loan" him the Refresh, forcing the character to take the power for real at the next Major Milestone, but that's stopgap at best. Like I said before- I think the Power represents a character like Grevane, someone who has embraced their breaking of that Law and does so again and again, eagerly and willingly.That has more to do, as you said, with the GM being a jerk than a failing of the power.
There's also the issue of accidental Lawbreaking and being forced to then take the power by jerk GM's. I was in a game where a wizard's apprentice used a Weapon:6, fire-element "pain-ray" (based on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System)) spell to take down a couple of pure mortal gunmen. Except the GM compelled the Scene aspect AFLAME or something like that to force us to get the hell out of dodge, leaving the gunmen. Afterwards, he asked her what Power she was going to replace with First Lawbreaker, saying that she had used an immense Weapon rating on pure mortals, crippling them, and subsequently left them to die. She was furious, and the game fell apart afterwards because we couldn't agree on how we should handle what happened.
This is the only thing I'm disagreeing with you about. I kind of despise the Lawbreaker power. Being forced to change one of your Aspects is an awesome way to represent having broken a Law: it changes a fundamental part of your character, you're pushed further down the dark path you started on (compels), you get hounded by wardens (compels), and you can be better at breaking that specific Law (Invokes, occasionally utilizing Taran's Sponsor Debt method). If a player in my game were to deliberately break a Law, I would make them change an Aspect, but I definitely wouldn't force them to take the Power itself, because losing a single refresh on a wizard is devastating and usually makes the character an NPC. The gamebook posits that you "loan" him the Refresh, forcing the character to take the power for real at the next Major Milestone, but that's stopgap at best. Like I said before- I think the Power represents a character like Grevane, someone who has embraced their breaking of that Law and does so again and again, eagerly and willingly.
There's also the issue of accidental Lawbreaking and being forced to then take the power by jerk GM's. I was in a game where a wizard's apprentice used a Weapon:6, fire-element "pain-ray" (based on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System)) spell to take down a couple of pure mortal gunmen. Except the GM compelled the Scene aspect AFLAME or something like that to force us to get the hell out of dodge, leaving the gunmen. Afterwards, he asked her what Power she was going to replace with First Lawbreaker, saying that she had used an immense Weapon rating on pure mortals, crippling them, and subsequently left them to die. She was furious, and the game fell apart afterwards because we couldn't agree on how we should handle what happened.
I hope you understand that in this theoretical game, not playing a wizard would be moronic. Wizards are already far and away the most powerful character types by virtue of Thaumaturgy/Crafting alone. Removing the already easily-circumvented restrictions upon them will make them even more hilariously broken. If the First Law is gone, good luck with literally any mortal holding up for more than one exchange in combat with a wizard. Third and Fourth Laws gone means that any mystery immediately becomes a joke. Fifth Law means mega-minions, and even more devaluation of the murder mystery. I can't even imagine what a wizard with no Law restrictions would do to game balance.
Honestly not sure what you guys are talking about. The Laws aren't a balancing factor for wizards. Being immune to them has no Refresh cost, after all.Well, with the First Law in place, you can compel the wizard along the lines of, "If you hit him with X power in an Evocation and take him out, that will kill him," and that will certainly change things. Or compelling him not to use any attacking magic. That seems to happen to Harry all the time.
If you remove the First Law, a fight between a mortal and a wizard will go almost exactly the same way it would go with it. The take-out narration might be a little different, but wizards who want to kill can do so through mundane means and wizards who don't want to kill can just narrate their targets surviving.
Anyway, the idea that the Refresh loss represents a slide into monstrous-ness is unconvincing to me because Refinement inflicts the exact same Refresh loss. So does knowing martial arts (Martial Artist) or having a lot of toys (Lush Lifestyle), for that matter. If your issue with using Aspects is that they're too easy to change, just say that they can't be.Perhaps monstrous wasn't the right word, but all those things do affect a person's nature and how they'll err toward that nature more and more the more they focus on it. It reinforces that this person identifies and is these traits, and finds it harder to resist them (i.e., they have less ability to buy out of compels).
for me wizards are supposed to be laws unto themelves, held in check by their own morality, or more powerful wizards and only if said wizard discovers what the wizard is doing. Being able to pull the answer out of a mortal mind is just as much investigation as looking for clues, you still have to find the right mortal and if another wizard or never never critter is involved getting by his spells will prove adventure enough. I want them to feel empowered, not constricted. Plus they wont know right away that the laws aren't really real, they will believe what all young wizards believe. Plus its still against the law to violate them they just have to do it without getting caugt or if caught be strong enough that the senior council doesnt want to waste resources (read wardens) enforcing the law.Then honestly this may not be the setting for you. This really isn't a "Wizards can do anything they can get away with" setting. Removing the Laws of Magic kind of means you're not playing in the Dresden universe anymore.
As far as the Third and Sixth Laws go, it's important to look at the wording.
For the Third Law, the verb is invade. Pretty big negative connotations right there, it implies breaking in, violating it, etc. It also shows why some mental magic is allowed, or how one can give a person permission to go on in.
For the Sixth Law, if I remember the wording, it's something along the lines of 'not swim against the currents of time'. Peeking your head up and catching a glimpse is one thing, actively trying to travel through time is another. It would also explain why folks with talents for prophecy (such as Cassandra's Tears) aren't hunted down for it.
The in-game mechanical effect of first (killing), second (no transforming), fourth (no enthralling) are likely mechanically enforced by the Power that entities like angels, the Knights, etc serve, and the extra power is a form of sponsored push by the kinds of folks who power the Denarians, at least two of the vampire courts and ghouls.