Shifts to Stress - optional or not ?

[Tsunami]

See the topic.
Shifts achieved in an attack roll (be it mundane or through evocation or whatever) can be translated into stress.

The question now is if either

a) They always and automatically translate into stress
Or
b) I can choose if they do

We've been talking it over... and over... and over... we just can't get to a conclusion *g*
I am certain that it is option b).
Our GM says it's option a)

Our GM's argument is that shifts represent uncertainty. And so they should be out of the players control.

My argument is that shifts represent the attackers skill and control in directing his attack, and therefore one should be able but not forced to use them to increase stress.

I'd like to see what the community thinks.

Also, if there actually is a quotable rule in the Books that would lay that argument to rest... PLEASE LET ME KNOW.... PLEAAASE. 

[luminos]

I'm pretty sure its option a.)
(If this is still about magic attacks, just call it a special weapon attack at weapon: 0 and be done with it, no need to worry about the shifts killing him)

[Deadmanwalking]

I'd be inclined toward option B, but it wouldn't necessarily keep you from, say, killing someone accidentally when you take them out.

[Bubba Amon Hotep]

Let the debate begin! 

[Tsunami]

I'm pretty sure its option a.)
(If this is still about magic attacks, just call it a special weapon attack at weapon: 0 and be done with it, no need to worry about the shifts killing him)

It's about all forms of attacks.

I'd be inclined toward option B, but it wouldn't necessarily keep you from, say, killing someone accidentally when you take them out.

Of course not, to much damage is to much damage.
It's about being able to control how much damage you dish out. Not about the result of that damage.

[GoldenH]

Maybe, but if so, those shifts are lost and cannot be used for anything else (No making an attack, getting enough to cause 1 shift of damage, and then insisting that the rest of your shifts should allow you to make a second action)

[Deadmanwalking]

Yeah, what GoldenH said. You want o do less damage? More power to you.

[Jeckel]

I've always allowed players to declare before they roll the attack that they are trying to do little damage. Then, if they hit, they can state how much of the possible damage is actually applied. I decided before my current campaign started that I would continue to allow this since it doesn't seem to break anything.

[CableRouter]

Also, if there actually is a quotable rule in the Books that would lay that argument to rest... PLEASE LET ME KNOW.... PLEAAASE. 

By the rules; stress doesn't do anything you don't want it to do, it doesn't matter if that stress comes from a weapon or from effect.

]If the damage exceeds the character's stress track, [...] the character is taken out, meaning the character has decisively lost the conflict. His fate is in the hands of the opponent, who may decide how the character loses.

So if you don't want your target to die, he doesn't die.  As simple as that, because there are very few things you can do that would preclude any chance of survival and that's all the rule requires; that the opponent could possibly survive.

If you have a GM who wants to house rule things to screw over wizards in his game, that's his choice, but I've got better things to do than play a game with a GM who thinks he can "win" the game by having a a wizard kill a mortal through GM fiat or simple trickery.  Simple like having a wizard be required to stop a bunch of very tough opponents, one of which is a regular human who has been altered by magic to look like one of those opponents.  "ZAP - Oops, that's a lawbreaker stunt for you...what's that?  You only had one refresh left?  Guess you're screwed, hahaha."

[Ala Alba]

Actually, there IS an example in YS, pages 214-215.

In the example given, it's perfectly possible to use the extra shifts from an attack on some other, non-attack action.

[GoldenH]

If you take them out, yes, if you could have done more damage, no, because that stress has a use, even if that use is in influencing wether the enemy eats a consequence or not.

[luminos]

If you have a GM who wants to house rule things to screw over wizards in his game, that's his choice, but I've got better things to do than play a game with a GM who thinks he can "win" the game by having a a wizard kill a mortal through GM fiat or simple trickery.  Simple like having a wizard be required to stop a bunch of very tough opponents, one of which is a regular human who has been altered by magic to look like one of those opponents.  "ZAP - Oops, that's a lawbreaker stunt for you...what's that?  You only had one refresh left?  Guess you're screwed, hahaha."

I think you need to assume good faith on the part of us who believe that story comes first.  That means that for some people, story beats players that try to "win" the game by raining Armageddon on every enemy they face without having to deal with the seven laws.

[JDdan]

I would tend to side with the GM and go with option A. While it's great that they mean to control their actions and be mindful of the outcomes, the base fact is that evocation is a dangerous, wild beast and is quite difficult to control. If you throw destructive energy at your opponent, you intend to do them harm. Just like a gun; you don't aim at something you don't intend to kill. The best marksman in the world couldn't make every shot non-lethal. Shoot someone in the leg, they can still die.

On the other hand, I agree that casters shouldn't be threatened with the nerf (read: lawbreaker) bat every time they go to cast something. I believe that the GM should be fairly tolerant the matter of magically killing a mortal by at the very least giving the player fair warning. If you want to shut someone down with magic, blocks and maneuvers are great!

Simple like having a wizard be required to stop a bunch of very tough opponents, one of which is a regular human who has been altered by magic to look like one of those opponents.  "ZAP - Oops, that's a lawbreaker stunt for you...what's that?  You only had one refresh left?  Guess you're screwed, hahaha."

I think this would be a perfectly acceptable plot hook IF and only IF the GM gives ample opportunity and clues to discover the treachery. Otherwise this seems like something a particularly devious and in-the-know enemy might do. I agree with you in that it's a bad idea to pull on a low refresh player as you don't want to Hand-of-god-GM them to death. But if your player is reckless enough, it could be fun to lead them into a setup where a warden witnesses what is apparently a lawbreaker in action

[Chris M]

Yeah, if you want to pull punches, reduce your effort, not your shifts. In other words, I'd let the character go with a +2 rather than the +5 listed on his sheet. He's not going for the kill.

But once the dice are out, it's done. You tried to pull your punch and killed the guy anyway.

[jalrin]

The most logical solution is to include the shifts in the roll but to grant greater latitude to wizard in determining the taken out result for damage done by control shifts as opposed to weapons ratings.

While I am sympathetic to the viewpoint that high powered weapons rating should be limited before they become lethal, it does not make sense to punish a character for doing a good job controlling their evocation.    Such a situation strikes me as creating a gotcha situation designed to deal with the fact that some GMs do not like wizard PCs principal combat power throwing a punch that puts it on par with the combined speed, strength, etc. powers other PCs get.

In designing the rules for the game I am GMing, I keep running into the same problem developing one of these house rules:  If one of my PCs brings a low yield attack but has high discipline and gets lucky, why should they be punished for exercising excessive ccontrol over their power?  The whole point of control is that it well controls the use of power.   Otherwise, it is impossible for a player to effectively play a spell caster if they cannot calculate a low yield attack setting  because they may roll too well (or the opponent rolls badly)

The argument is made that such screwing of evocators is necessary to maintain story cohesion, but it leads to the result that Harry Dresden is better able to safely incapacitate an opponent than would Elaine Mallory who, by the rules, gives up a an extra mild consequence, and suffers a reduction in her spell casting power, specifically to have the ability to exercise absolute control over her spells.  This makes no sense and justifies a simple rule that, below a certain weapon rating (I would say 2-3), the rules in the book should be followed with regards to taking out an opponent even if one of these house rules is imposed.