How about leaving some Aspects open, but having a number of index cards with Aspects pre-written on them.  Let the players pick/get their pre-gen, and then they can either fill in Aspects themselves or look through the stack and pick a few.

That gives you a quicker system that keeps the idea of choice while guiding the hands of those that are frozen with the wide choices.  You can also put in Aspects that you know will be applicable to the adventure.

The poor guy is only getting thirteen minutes of sleep per day as is.

It's a rule. Can't have more than thirteen...

dice don't even need to be involved for many of them.

Of course...but I asked for you to humor me.

If the NPC has a partial inclination to stop anyway then it won't even matter what the player does, almost anything will keep him from leaving.

Ah, but if the NPC is inclined to leave, it's a trick to get him to stay, and your level of skill at that trick is measured by a...skill.  How many times in a narrative does the hero stop or get stopped for a moment with a choice phrase?

If dice need to be involved you don't need have to think of it as block. The exchange can be thought of as a contest instead. They are practically the same thing in this situation, and since its not like it is actual combat the simpler one is just that, simpler

True, but if the NPC stops there likely COULD be a social conflict, so why not use the model?  So few games have good rules for modeling social conflict, why avoid them when there is an actual social conflict that could be both significant and fun?

No matter which option is chosen, just roll a contest and see who wins. If the PC wins the guy stays for a number of exchanges equal to the shift, if the NPC wins then he gets away. If there is a tie the NPC gets away but the PC gains some minor bit of information about him that will help track him down later, like maybe a matchbook from a bar falls out of the NPCs pocket as he dodges around the PC.

I admire the description, but it's outside what I was looking for.  I presented the options I was considering and was trying to work out the details of how they functioned.  Luminos gave me a solid answer (thanks!) that helped me with the part I was grappling with: Rolling dice to walk away feels weird.  But if I consider doing the same thing in a physical conflict, I'd not blink at rolling, say, Might, to push past something (and walking away).  In particular, I needed to realize that there isn't a -1 for a supplemental action: Walking IS the action with no roll needed.  The roll just ALLOWS the action.

Thanks to all, I'm good here.  I'm sorry to be mysterious, but if this pans out, I'm sure it will be useful to others.  I expect I'll have additional questions as time moves forward.

I'd probably do it as a block using an appropriate skill to the situation.

Thematically I prefer block, but how would you resolve any attempt to leave? 

If I get a Good (+2) Intimidate Block to prevent you from leaving, does this mean you are free to take action on me EXCEPT for leaving?  Does trying to leave take up my action if I fail to get past your block?  What am I rolling to overcome your block?

If I understand correctly, the laws of magic only have jurisdiction on wizards (of any types). What about the other supernatural types. Do they have certain types of laws managing their magic?

Can Changeling, who use the sponsored seelie magic for example, mind control (charm) anyone without raising issues with the white counsel?

The _White Council_ has no jurisdiction over non-humans.

That said, the Laws of Magic are fundamental things that the White Council just tries to adhere to.  I'd say any PC is bound to the Laws of Magic.  Once they drop to 0 or negative refresh, they lose that final spark of humanity and Free Will and become a creature with a nature but not a choice.

So a changeling PC or even a full on Vampire (given enough refresh) can be a PC and be (mechanically) bound my the Laws of Magic.  The White Council won't pay much attention, but the player and PC should.

Just my view.

But if I use an Aspect for Lawbreaking...

He brocke the Law many times so he has the aspect: My wish is your Order.

Note I'm recommending Aspect ONLY for creation, and ONLY for characters that "slipped".  (See Title Character of Game  Basically you're giving them the Stunt without reducing their refresh, with the proviso that breaking the law again WILL reduce their refresh.  Pro story, minus balance penalty, maintaining ongoing rules.

Playing someone that will happily break the law again doesn't bring up any desire from me to shelter them from the costs.

Playing someone that has a problem but is trying to get over it sounds awesomely like an Aspect.  (Expecting to fail is a different problem).   As far as getting rid of the Stunt, see the Redemption discussion in the book.  In terms of Aspects, that's character evolution, but I'd expect it to be a rare thing regardless.  The Aspect may alter, but the stigma should remain.  

(How many times does an NPC mention that Harry has the stain of Dark Magic? like, twice per book)

I do think we've gotten it better than it would have been if it had gone to press three weeks ago when the preorder started, but some issues simply won't be resolved and -- in a few cases -- won't be viewed by Evil Hat as something that *needs* to be resolved in a general case. The tools are there to tweak the game to work for you at your table. Pursue that, with a passion, and our blessing.

Awesome.  I think the game is awesome, I think anywhere I didn't understand what you (the authors) were saying has been addressed, and I eagerly await the deadtree version. 

Thanks for putting the game together, for having the Early Bird version, and for reading and considering our questions.

Going through the Stunts list, I noticed that a few just didn't seem worthwhile.  (More "didn't appeal", but that's a personal thing - I'm more focused on Stunts that I saw not being worth the expense to the person that worthwhile.)   I also saw one or two that confused me in certain ways. I'm listing them here so others can point out where I'm wrong, or the authors can tell me how it's already been fixed

Overall - Recovery Justification: The "justification for recovery" Stunts seem inconsistent, and some seem like a stunt wouldn't be necessary.  (A concussion is bad, but a good roll of relevant knowledge should allow for recovery without a stunt, for example.  Not to mention that I don't think Empathy really helps recover from social consequence "WENT BONKERS AND DANCED NAKED ON THE DEAN'S DESK")

Overall - Faster: The "does this faster" Stunts are hurt by the fact that I can't find strong guidelines for how long things SHOULD take in most cases.  I'd suspect in short order the GM would mentally start adjusting for the existence of the stunt (unintentionally), removing the benefit.  I don't think this is an error, but I personally would tend to be leery of them for that reason or at the very least adopt an "ask how long, argue if it is high, them remind of stunt" policy.

Athletics - Too Fast to Hit:  It says "gain an additional +1 to the roll when making such a move".  First, Couldn't that be multiple moves?  (Full Defense isn't a block).  Second, it's unclear if the bonus +1 applies only if you are moving zones while using Full Defense.

Contacts - Ear to the Ground: Any reason the Difficulty is reduced instead of getting a +2?  I know it works out the same, but it's a bit odd to be different.

Conviction - Resilient Self-Image: I know this was pegged as being too strong; I don't recall what the fix was.

Conviction - Tower of Faith: Armor for both mental AND social seems a bit strong (an argument can be made that physical is more frequent - I'm willing to hear that argument)

Deceit - Pick-Pocket: Actually, this is fine (I like it!) I just found it odd that it didn't include a page reference like the other sections did (page 126)

Deceit - Stage Magician: Why not say the +1 bonus stacks with the Pick Pocket stunt, making it more clear that it applies to pick pocket attempts even if you don't have the stunt?

Empathy - Counselor: See "Recovery Justification" above.  I'd have a hard time arguing with someone that has a high Empathy that they can't work to help someone with a moderate consequence.  Requiring justification is good - requiring stunts for those is harsh. (but that may just be me).  Wouldn't this be better as a bonus to rolls to provide justification?

Endurance - No Pain, No Gain: Already has been ruled too strong; Don't recall the fix

Fists - Martial Artist: See other thread, but (a) I would've assumed that Fists COULD do assessments on fighters without the Stunt (p115 says it's usually perception or knowledge skills, but this seems perfectly appropriate).  and (b) Why is this a prereq (and the only prereq in the game?)  I don't see a problem with dropping the entire prereq concept given the stunts presented.  If you're keeping this Stunt, I'd revise Assessments (p115) to create a hard line that without stunts, it's perception and knowledge skills ONLY.  (Side note: Guns grants Gun Knowledge(p131), why doesn't Fists grant Brawling knowledge?)

Fists - Lethal Weapon: Weapon:2 seems too strong.  Weapon:1?  Or is it because it's only vs unarmored opponents?

Fists - Step Into the Blow: Someone can sacrifice several actions in stack as written (though they'd be reeling from so many failed defenses, it can happen).  That seems...weird.  Round 1: 4 guys smack the center guy, center guy smacks all of them.  They spend the next 3 rounds running/debating/ordering pizza while he waits for an action.

Might - Wrestler: Already fixed to be +1 to maintain a grapple.  (or break?)

Performance - Pointed Performance: I have the desire now to rewrite Hamlet as a series of DFRPG-FATE conflicts... Nothing wrong with the stunt though.

Presence - Teflon Persona: This is fine, but makes Tower of Faith still look too strong.

Weapons - Riposte: See Fists - Step Into the Blow for discussion of limiting how many actions you can sacrifice.  Why is this successful vs that stunts roll at +1?

Comments/Corrections welcome!