Dismissing Conjurations (which has turned into another Laws of Magic thread)

[Rel Fexive]

Or at least, right for the game he's running for Harry.

Heh, of course   Or, for that matter, in the game where he's playing Harry...

On that subject, who on earth is Jim's GM if he's playing Harry?

[Rel Fexive]

This is unfortunately as much a flaw as a strength. without a clear, understandable, and universally true way that the laws work ooc then you will have radicaly different interpretations on them, this is good in that aindividual st is not "tied down" in there implementation and bad because most st's are not in anyway skilled enough orators, debators, or writers to actually express there individual interpreation and as such you will have many players who think they ooc know how the laws work get a rather harsh surprise when they get slapped with lawbreaker and are told there charecter is now unplayable.

Transparency and consistency are good... yes freedom for individual its is good[or so i'm told]. but you can take it to far and i believe this is an example of that. 

Everyone's game is different anyway, without or without something massively open to interpretation like the Laws.  So the only thing you can do is get an idea of how the Laws will work at your table and play within that framework.  At the end of the day everyone in your game will decide what is and isn't cool, so becoming a Lawbreaker shouldn't be that much of a shock.  Ideally, at least; the first few times someone tries to step around the Laws will probably trigger some spirited discussions, which isn't much different to arguing any other rule interpretation.

[Moriden]

spirited discussions

Unfortunately in my experience this kind of thing especially when theres no actual exact interpretation to resort to, actually is closer to "screaming bitter diatribe" and has lead to not only the end of friendships but occasionally physical violence. should people get that worked up over a game, no of course not.Do i think this will happen in my current gaming group? no probably not.  that doesn't mean they wont happen somewhere though.

I have always argued for a clear and universal interpretation of a setting and rules. because in the last 13 years of role playing i have seen significantly less drama, confusion, and anger caused by "be forced into an interpretation" then by vague or "however you feel like" descriptions.

[Rel Fexive]

Problem is, such a clear interpretation is entirely within Mr Butcher's province, not the game developers.  So the highest authority you can probably get an answer from is the developers... and that's just an interpretation itself.  So I think you're out of luck if you're looking for Word Of God on this... unless you go post in the "Questions To Jim" thread elsewhere in the forum.  And that's not guaranteed a useful response; he's not required to give you a straight/useful answer after all

[Moriden]

true. i tend to take into account that since Fred plays d and d with Jim[ or so ive heard] that they got the laws correct when they wrote them, so i argue from the perspective that the laws "as writen" are "corect"

[iago]

It is not the game's job to fix malfunctioning social dynamics in a play-group. We've written a game for people who can play as mature, rational individuals. If there are screaming diatribes around the Laws, I can say firmly that that is in no way our problem nor our fault.

I feel the discussion in the books is flexible but reasonably comprehensive. You can use the info in the book to draw a firm line as to what constitutes a violation. If you have players who need that kind of firmness, then do so, and do it up front rather than in play. We've given you the tools. It's up to you to make sure you don't hammer your thumb. 

[Moriden]

do it up front rather than in play

This part at least ill agree with.

[SaintAndSinner]

I think you must tell the players up front how you'll be utilizing these rules.  No doubt. 

As an aside, if you use magic with the intent to kill but don't you don't get the LB stunt.  If you do kill you do.  This makes sense to me since you've sort of finished your intent 'closing the circle' of the magical effect so to speak.  You made that irrevocable choice.

[iago]

As an aside, if you use magic with the intent to kill but don't you don't get the LB stunt.  If you do kill you do.  This makes sense to me since you've sort of finished your intent 'closing the circle' of the magical effect so to speak.  You made that irrevocable choice.

Yep. That ties into how many all of the Laws operate, really. Doing the undoable, messing with the natural order of the universe by imposing your will upon it, etc.

[RogerC]

Anyone feel like answering the original question?  Thanks =)


Cheers,
Roger

[iago]

Anyone feel like answering the original question?  Thanks =)

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,17681.new.html#new