Shifts to Stress - optional or not ?

[Bubba Amon Hotep]

I agree with several that have posted.  There has to be a line.

Question: The Bag Guy in the scene has been stabbed by the swordsman in the group, shot twice by the marksman, he is looking pretty bad, but is still standing. 

Does the Wizard throw a minor bit of magic to "knock him out", because he is worried about killing him?
or
Does the wizard unload with max force to be sure the guy is finished off, since (according to the rules) he doesn't have to worry about killing him?

Part of the thrill in the books I enjoy is the temptation of power that magic gives.  You have to use it responsibly, you cant use it to solve every problem, and if you do over use it, or use it to solve problems it shouldn't be used for bad things happen to you.

Ultimately, its up to each group, each player.  But I would like to see both GM and PC on the edge of the seat when using magic to hurt someone.  Yeah its cool as heck to throw fireballs and lightning blasts around at a whim.  But what happens when the building catches on fire, and the power grid of the city block shorts out.  How many disruptions are going to occur before the over zealous wizard(s) are hunted by the authorities as terrorists, and the wardens as rogue warlocks?

So start with B but if the players abuse it, then switch it to A.  They will have to learn to pull the punches so you can switch back to B.  Perhaps there is no clear defined answer on this.  But abuse is a two way street.  Player and GM should share the responsibility.

[JDdan]

I agree with several that have posted.  There has to be a line.

Question: The Bag Guy in the scene has been stabbed by the swordsman in the group, shot twice by the marksman, he is looking pretty bad, but is still standing.  

Does the Wizard throw a minor bit of magic to "knock him out", because he is worried about killing him?
or
Does the wizard unload with max force to be sure the guy is finished off, since (according to the rules) he doesn't have to worry about killing him?

Part of the thrill in the books I enjoy is the temptation of power that magic gives.  You have to use it responsibly, you cant use it to solve every problem, and if you do over use it, or use it to solve problems it shouldn't be used for bad things happen to you.

Ultimately, its up to each group, each player.  But I would like to see both GM and PC on the edge of the seat when using magic to hurt someone.  Yeah its cool as heck to throw fireballs and lightning blasts around at a whim.  But what happens when the building catches on fire, and the power grid of the city block shorts out.  How many disruptions are going to occur before the over zealous wizard(s) are hunted by the authorities as terrorists, and the wardens as rogue warlocks?

So start with B but if the players abuse it, then switch it to A.  They will have to learn to pull the punches so you can switch back to B.  Perhaps there is no clear defined answer on this.  But abuse is a two way street.  Player and GM should share the responsibility.

This I think is a reasonable compromise.

And someone mentioned the application of fist earlier (which I admit did not occur to me at my earlier post) and it leads me to consider the type of attack. You punch someone, you're a lot less likely to kill them if you shoot them. Likewise if you push someone around with a force or air attack you're a lot less likely to kill them as with say, a ball of fire or a bolt of lightning. Keep in mind that in the books Harry is extremely careful when using his magic against mortals. He pretty much always uses force or wind and usually spends it to push them along or discourage their actions, creating a block or aspect of some sort (wall of wind anyone?).

[jalrin]

So start with B but if the players abuse it, then switch it to A.  They will have to learn to pull the punches so you can switch back to B.  Perhaps there is no clear defined answer on this.  But abuse is a two way street.  Player and GM should share the responsibility.

I guess I am confused.  The OP specifically asked about how to deal with characters who get a lot of shifts on their control roll, not their weapon rating.  I do not see how those can be abused in your scenario where an evocator has only used a low yield attack but gotten a bonanza of shifts because they controlled their power very well.  While I see your point on the weapon rating issue, I do not see how highly controlling your power is a character failing or abuse of the rules.  If anything, it seems like the opposite and something the WC would encourage.

Now, if you want to discuss the consequences of fallout from bringing more power than the character can handle, that is a completely different story. 

[CMEast]

I think the ideal way to handle this is through story, if the wizard isn't trying to kill his target and controlled the spell well then he should be able to specify the take out conditions. If it's an obviously lethal spell then the GM should warn the caster (just an 'are you sure?' should do) and then force a more serious take out.

Of course, if you have players or a GM that isn't able to deal with this through story and need a rule, I would say that specifying a lower shift spell than you can normally control should count as pulling punches (the weapon value should be at most 2 or 3, if the caster has conviction 5 but only casts a weapon:4 spell, it's still pretty lethal). Of course a weak caster (conviction 2 or 3) won't be able to pull their punches much in this case, but then if they are casting spells close to their power limits, that suggests a certain lack of control anyway.

[CableRouter]

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.

We're talking about a game system where a man can drop a grenade at his feet, just stand there until it goes off and one scene later he's perfectly fine. 

Would you let a player who takes someone out with a grenade say "Ok, he gets blown a few feet into a wall, he's got a mild concussion and some minor cuts and is out cold"?  It's certainly within the realm of reason because it happens in real life all the time.  

What is so fundamentally different about magic that the player loses his narrative power if he does the exact same thing with a Strength 4 spell?  What is so wrong about letting the winner of a conflict decide what happens to the loser in a storytelling game?

[luminos]

Nothing is wrong with that, if that is really how you want to play the game.  You want to play the monster killing mercenary waster without a conscience?  Fine, have fun. 

What is so wrong with wanting to play a game where decisions actually matter, and people have to deal with the consequences of their actions (yes, even completely successful actions)?  You assume that just because I don't want to play the type of game you do, that I'm just trying to find a reason to hurt wizards.  Please assume good faith.

Now, yes, magic attacks shouldn't be treated differently than mundane attacks, as far as determining the reasonable outcome of an event goes.  So if someone is routinely dropping grenades, I expect those grenades to eventually kill someone, like it or not.  They won't have to deal with lawbreaker stunts, but they will certainly have to deal with law enforcement.  And this is for the same reason that wizards should have to worry about killing people with massive power evocations.  Because it makes the game fun.  Because it brings out thematic issues of how people use the power they have, and how they must resist the temptation to abuse that power.

[Deadmanwalking]

See, I'd do the exact same thing with either of those situations: Offer the player a Compel for the victim to die. If they reject it, it costs them a Fate Point, if they accept, the victim dies. Thus such behavior is discouraged unless you want to kill people.

Realism does have a place in the game. Now, if the magic user is explicitly doing something non-lethal (like a lightning taser), that's a different matter, but blasts of flame have to have a real chance of killing people for suspension of disbelief not to be broken.

[CMEast]

We're talking about a game system where a man can drop a grenade at his feet, just stand there until it goes off and one scene later he's perfectly fine. 

Would you let a player who takes someone out with a grenade say "Ok, he gets blown a few feet into a wall, he's got a mild concussion and some minor cuts and is out cold"?  It's certainly within the realm of reason because it happens in real life all the time.  

What is so fundamentally different about magic that the player loses his narrative power if he does the exact same thing with a Strength 4 spell?  What is so wrong about letting the winner of a conflict decide what happens to the loser in a storytelling game?

I think it really depends on intent. If a player is using the 'grenade' (magic or otherwise) in a way that fits the story for it to be non-lethal then I'd allow it. However, if the take-out rules are being abused to dodge an important part of the game (lawbreaking, wardens etc) then there should be consequences for the player. You can't throw around lethal spells whilst dodging all the consequences.

On the 'control' roll, perhaps we are being too literal. As with everything else in this game, the numbers have to be turned in to descriptions and this can be done lots of ways. Sometimes a +4 control roll might literally be a well-controlled spell, it could also be a result of tapping hidden reserves of inner strength or concentrating the spell on an opponents weak spot (on purpose or not).

[JDdan]

We're talking about a game system where a man can drop a grenade at his feet, just stand there until it goes off and one scene later he's perfectly fine.  

Strictly looking at the rules for weapons, yes that seems more or less correct (assuming a good endurance). But I think the weapon ratings are rather vague and done so by design, allowing for sufficient skills to make up the damage as well as our own views on how damaging we should make something. A person pulling this in my games (without an applicable toughness) would most likely be out and out dead, if not working off some
big time consequences.

Would you let a player who takes someone out with a grenade say "Ok, he gets blown a few feet into a wall, he's got a mild concussion and some minor cuts and is out cold"?  It's certainly within the realm of reason because it happens in real life all the time.  

Depends on the type of munition really. Fragmentation devices don't work that way, for example. You could argue that Concussion/stun ones do. The point I'm trying to make is that the outcome of a taken-out has to more or less be in proportion to the type of attack.

Take someone out by hitting them with a car and it's difficult to see how you could dumb down the attack to be less lethal (thus ignoring extra shifts). Maybe by hitting the breaks at the last second or trying to "clip" them? Either way you're still hitting them with a good deal of mass. I wouldn't expect them to get out of it without a number of consequences.

EDIT:

See, I'd do the exact same thing with either of those situations: Offer the player a Compel for the victim to die. If they reject it, it costs them a Fate Point, if they accept, the victim dies. Thus such behavior is discouraged unless you want to kill people.

Ah yea... didn't think of that. Seems a good way to balance both perspectives.

On the 'control' roll, perhaps we are being too literal. As with everything else in this game, the numbers have to be turned in to descriptions and this can be done lots of ways. Sometimes a +4 control roll might literally be a well-controlled spell, it could also be a result of tapping hidden reserves of inner strength or concentrating the spell on an opponents weak spot (on purpose or not).

Rereading the evocation rules I think we may be forgetting that the discipline rolls is representative of two separate rolls (functions). One to control and shape the power, and one to direct/aim it. We do one for convenience. Which should the extra shift damage apply from? I would think the aim roll. So the initial control roll to account for the weapon rating, and the targeting roll to apply extra shifts of damage OR declare that after a hit those shifts are ignored to represent an intentional glancing blow?

[Bubba Amon Hotep]

I guess I am confused.  The OP specifically asked about how to deal with characters who get a lot of shifts on their control roll, not their weapon rating.  I do not see how those can be abused in your scenario where an evocator has only used a low yield attack but gotten a bonanza of shifts because they controlled their power very well.  While I see your point on the weapon rating issue, I do not see how highly controlling your power is a character failing or abuse of the rules.  If anything, it seems like the opposite and something the WC would encourage.

Let me help your confusion.  If you notice the OP gave two options  A and B.  I suggested starting with B, gives everyone the most flexibility.  But if the players kept abusing HIGH control, the GM could switch it to A.

How can they abuse it?  Harry always mentions the fact that he can't control his spells that well.  Which is why he needs a focus.  Therefore, he has to amp up the Weapon Level of the Spell and hope he hits.  Morgan has High control, so he doesn't need to put that much into the spell to get the same effect.  Players with HIGH Control, will soon understand they only need to throw low weapon level spells to achieve the same thing as a LOW control and High Damage character can.

I agree with Luminos on his viewpoint.  Either way it boils down to one thing.  How the GM wants to handle it.  Everyone plays a different game.  Everyone wants different things.  And in the end, it just a means for people to sit around a table, or computer and have fun.  Just because some disagrees with your view point doesn't mean you or they are wrong.

The rules are more like guidelines really. . .

[TheMouse]

It seems to me that this whole thing could be solved with a quick conversation at the game table.

If someone doesn't like the idea of lightning bolts and hand grenades Taking Out people in consistently non-lethal ways, they should bring it up to the group. Point out that it bugs them and that they'd like to see deadly results from deadly weapons more often. Figure out what the consensus is and then go from there to build a fun game.

There's no reason to set invisible lines that players can cross and have deadly things they didn't expect happen. Those sort of traps create frustration. Likewise, there's no reason for people to sit and stew and do nothing when something about the game is bothersome to them.

FATE is all sorts of flexible on what it lets you get away with narratively when the mechanics output a given result. If you know what your group is good with, and when they know what you're good with, there's far less worry about this sort of thing ruining anyone's time.

[Tsunami]

Ok, everybody has returned to Magical Attacks... that's not what this thread was supposed to be focused upon.
Also, it's not about killing your target or not.

It's actually about a basic part of the system.
It applies to evocation attacks as much as it does to lets say attacks made with fists.

The way I see it, forcing shifts onto the attack basically means that you always hit with all the force you can muster.
A High fists Character is no longer able to throw a lighter punch, a high weapons character always goes for the strike to the heart, a skilled gunman always goes for the killing shot, and a highly trained evocator always goes for maximum destruction.

For me that just doesn't make sense. So I'm of the opinion that Stress from shifts should be optional. For all types of attacks.

YS 200
If  the  attacker wins  the  roll,  the  shifts  he acquires  translate  into  a  stress  value  he  can inflict on  the defender.
"Can" being the important word here. He can inflict, but does not have to.

So, please lets stay on the question of how shifts are intended to be handled by the system.
Not how stress values are supposed to be handled, applied or interpreted by the players and the GM.

[luminos]

I interpret the rule to be that shifts in an attack always go towards damage.  I can see where others might want to make that optional, and the exact wording leaves room to do so.  Here is my interpretation of what shifts mean:  Shifts do not represent skill.  Your skill value represents skill.  What they do represent is the effectiveness of whatever it is that you originally set out to do.  In investigations, this would be represented by finding an extra piece of evidence, if you have enough extra shifts.  In throwing a punch, this would represent extra effectiveness in hurting your opponent.  It does not represent the ability to precisely get the end result you are aiming for, just the intermediate result. 

There are, I think, interesting ways to handle situations where you don't want to let the uncertainty of the dice place your end goal out of reach, but trying to completely eliminate risk in both directions is a bit futile.  One interesting trick you might experiment with is a 'called shot' maneuver against an opponent, so that when you tag that aspect next exchange, you have every right to demand the effect of the attack be localized against the spot you called it on.  Perhaps another trick, and one that might require GM consent, is to declare you are intentionally pulling your punches and therefore rolling with an attack skill value lower than what is on your sheet.  This allows you to estimate safe attacks without taking out the randomness of the dice. 

Or get the GM to agree to your interpretation.  But even if he doesn't, there are still definite options for how to play a character that wants to be cautious about attacks.

[toturi]

Nothing is wrong with that, if that is really how you want to play the game.  You want to play the monster killing mercenary waster without a conscience?  Fine, have fun. 

What is so wrong with wanting to play a game where decisions actually matter, and people have to deal with the consequences of their actions (yes, even completely successful actions)?  You assume that just because I don't want to play the type of game you do, that I'm just trying to find a reason to hurt wizards.  Please assume good faith.

You show bad faith to the person you disagree with and demand good faith of him? 

You could show good faith first by assuming that such players are not "monster killing mercenary waster without a conscience".

[EldritchFire]

Ok, everybody has returned to Magical Attacks... that's not what this thread was supposed to be focused upon.
Also, it's not about killing your target or not.

It's actually about a basic part of the system.
It applies to evocation attacks as much as it does to lets say attacks made with fists.

The way I see it, forcing shifts onto the attack basically means that you always hit with all the force you can muster.
A High fists Character is no longer able to throw a lighter punch, a high weapons character always goes for the strike to the heart, a skilled gunman always goes for the killing shot, and a highly trained evocator always goes for maximum destruction.

Not so. Stress != damage. A high weapons character could just be doing fancy moves, and backing their opponent into a corner. A skilled gunman might just be shooting where the target was about to be, thus discouraging them from moving. In either case, the taken out result is they surrender, since they know they are outclasses and out gunned.

The ghoul's slash that just missed Dresden's face? That's stress. When Harry got shot, that's a consequence. Per YS197, ". Each party accumulates gradual success, affecting their opponents in a momentary (resulting in stress) or lasting (resulting  in  a  consequence) way."

To address the OP, it's really up to the table to decide. If more of the table agree it's B, then so be it. If more people agree with the GM, than it's A.

I'd say sit down and talk it out with your group.

-EF