Giving teeth to enforcement of The Laws

[sinker]

Something occurred to me while I was reading all of this. Both opinions are valid.

That's not even remotely what I've been saying , but it's become clear to me that the distinction the book makes between character choices and player choices isn't going to become clear to you. I never said that accidental death isn't possible. I said that players can't have their characters kill other people accidentally unless they want to. DF gives massive control over a character's story to the player. If they want to have their character accidentally murder someone then they can do that (as long as the result is reasonable). If they want to have almost killed someone but happen to not have then this is also fine (again, as long as it's reasonable).

This is really awesome. When you have players that are experienced and are trying to come up with a compelling story.

I'm sure Tallyrand's concept works very well when you have a group of players who are inexperienced and trying to "win" the game. Personally the line between 2 and 3 does seem a bit arbitrary to me, however there is no line (except maybe the line between 0 and 1) that really makes perfect sense, so everyone's going to draw their own arbitrary line.

I work with both on a regular basis (my group is very mixed) and I can really see the benefit of what Tallyrand is saying. However there's something about that blanket limitation that really bothers me. I think I would rather talk to my players openly about their feelings on the matter and try to figure out what works best for them. Something I have become aware of recently is that, the goal of gaming being for everyone to have fun, this kind of thing often subverts that goal. The players who want a great story will create it and they will have fun. The players who want to "win" will (or won't), and they will have fun.  The GM's fun is the most precarious in a lot of ways, however it's easier if you don't have a lot of preconceived notions about what should and should not happen. Not that that's something I can personally do....

As an aside in comparing a lot of this to the novels I believe that one of the reasons you don't see a lot of non-lethal spells is because they are difficult, and not universally useful. Throwing energy wildly at someone is not hard, but having to focus or refine that energy into something precise or restrained enough to incapacitate mortals without hurting them sounds pretty hard. And the fact that the whole supernatural world is trying to stay hidden means the less one interacts with mortals at all the better. Seems to me that Dresden is actually bucking the trend (what with his one mortal encounter a year) with this so he might really want to look into some non-lethal spells, however given his aspects it doesn't seem likely.

[luminos]

Here's a nice parallel:  Players are in control of whether their character lives or dies.  The system is designed so that the character only dies if the player wants them to. 

Scenario:  Player has character attack a monster, with the GM forecasting the monsters intent of killing the player.  The monster hits him with 12 shifts of damage on the first attack, and the player doesn't have consequences to absorb the attack.  The GM decides that the character dies.   Does this invalidate the idea that players decide if their character lives or dies?  No, because he had options available to him prior to rolling the dice against the monster that would have guaranteed (and that the player knew would guarantee) the characters living.  The player certainly didn't fight the monster with the intent of dying, but he accepted the risk of it happening anyways. 

I see the "players always have the choice to kill a character or not" as roughly falling under the same distinction.  You can always describe your victory as killing the other character, or letting them live, but the way you go about securing that victory puts limits on how you describe the victory.  Using weapon: 5 attacks is taking a risk by saying, "I may end up killing him, but its important enough to take him down that I'm willing to sacrifice some control over the outcome".  There is a silly place that I see being defended where the character loses control over the outcome, but that loss of control never translates into a real consequence for the character because the player always gets to negate that loss of control through pure metagame.

[nearchus]

I'm sure Tallyrand's concept works very well when you have a group of players who are inexperienced and trying to "win" the game. Personally the line between 2 and 3 does seem a bit arbitrary to me, however there is no line (except maybe the line between 0 and 1) that really makes perfect sense, so everyone's going to draw their own arbitrary line.

If the entire group actually has the conversation as advised under "In your game..." and in other places in the book, then this shouldn't be a problem. Your group decides what is reasonable. If one player is playing to "win" then their result will often be unreasonable. That is, if the rest of the group isn't playing to win. And if *everyone* is playing to win, and it's just the GM who thinks that the players aren't adding enough conflict into their character's lives, then I'd suggest that GM either rethink his position or find a new group.

Many game systems are designed to run as a competition. The players compete to conquer the problems presented by the GM. This game system limits that and gives the players more power to interact with the story and make it their own. It's not the GM's responsibility to determine when a character has become boring for a player and decide that the character has suddenly accidentally killed someone. This is the player's choice, not the GM's. The only time they don't get to is when their choice is inconsistent with the setting that was agreed upon by the group.

[sinker]

If one player is playing to "win" then their result will often be unreasonable. That is, if the rest of the group isn't playing to win. And if *everyone* is playing to win, and it's just the GM who thinks that the players aren't adding enough conflict into their character's lives, then I'd suggest that GM either rethink his position or find a new group.

This is really unnecessary. Remember I play with a very diverse group. All at the same table. Some are trying to "win", some are not. But we all recognize that those goals aren't exclusive. We can all get what we want.

Many game systems are designed to run as a competition. The players compete to conquer the problems presented by the GM. This game system limits that

I disagree. This system encourages you (the player and the GM) to create the game you want.

It's not the GM's responsibility to determine when a character has become boring for a player and decide that the character has suddenly accidentally killed someone. This is the player's choice, not the GM's. The only time they don't get to is when their choice is inconsistent with the setting that was agreed upon by the group.

It can be both.

Here's what I see. Tallyrand is making a suggestion. Tallyrand is suggesting that before you start you talk to your players and create a point that differentiates non-lethal damage from lethal damage. Some value that everyone recognizes as the point beyond which you are risking lives. If your players need more structure than the system currently provides or can't provide their own drama and climactic choices (as many groups are accustomed to more structured systems) then this may be an acceptable suggestion.

[Tallyrand]

That's not even remotely what I've been saying , but it's become clear to me that the distinction the book makes between character choices and player choices isn't going to become clear to you. I never said that accidental death isn't possible. I said that players can't have their characters kill other people accidentally unless they want to. DF gives massive control over a character's story to the player. If they want to have their character accidentally murder someone then they can do that (as long as the result is reasonable). If they want to have almost killed someone but happen to not have then this is also fine (again, as long as it's reasonable).

Ok, I didn't know I had to make this distinction clear every time I say it, but what I mean when "When you say that killing accidentally is impossible" what I mean is that it is your position that it is not possible for a player unintentionally have there character kill someone.  That when I say accidentally every time in this thread I mean on the part of the player not the characters.  You, the player, from my stance should be subject to unintended consequences of your actions.

Yes DF gives a lot of control to the player, which I love, but it doesn't give total control to the play because it wants to proved a level of tension and uncertainty, I am of the position that the writers of the game intended to have one of those things not under the control of the players to be whether or not very powerful offensive spells kill their targets when they result in a taken out.

This section, by the way, deliberately doesn't give "mechanics" because they aren't needed

This is where our disagreement exists, I believe that they didn't provide mechanics because different gaming tables may play this differently, but that my stance (that there should be a hard rule and that choice should be taken partially out of the hands of the players or the GM) is more in the spirit of what the writers intended.

[Tallyrand]

Something occurred to me while I was reading all of this. Both opinions are valid.

This is really awesome. When you have players that are experienced and are trying to come up with a compelling story.

I'm sure Tallyrand's concept works very well when you have a group of players who are inexperienced and trying to "win" the game. Personally the line between 2 and 3 does seem a bit arbitrary to me, however there is no line (except maybe the line between 0 and 1) that really makes perfect sense, so everyone's going to draw their own arbitrary line.

While I'm sure there are more experienced gaming groups out there we are certainly not 'inexperience' and my position doesn't come from a place of my group is not mature or good enough at the game not to need the rule.  My position is that if you put that decision entirely in the hands of the players you remove a necessary element of tension from them game.  The reason that there are rules in RPGs is to give a structure for the story and create the mood of whatever the game is attempting to recreate.  Tension in games is exceedingly valuable and is never more evident than when the players interact with a take out mechanic, and my position is that the Law of Magic we intended to be used in that way.

That being said, of course both sides are valid, I've said so several times in this conversation, I'm simply arguing what I believe was the designers intent.

I work with both on a regular basis (my group is very mixed) and I can really see the benefit of what Tallyrand is saying. However there's something about that blanket limitation that really bothers me. I think I would rather talk to my players openly about their feelings on the matter and try to figure out what works best for them. Something I have become aware of recently is that, the goal of gaming being for everyone to have fun, this kind of thing often subverts that goal. The players who want a great story will create it and they will have fun. The players who want to "win" will (or won't), and they will have fun.  The GM's fun is the most precarious in a lot of ways, however it's easier if you don't have a lot of preconceived notions about what should and should not happen. Not that that's something I can personally do....

I have never suggested not discussing this sort of thing with your group, as you should every house rule, and unfortunately (or fortunately dependent on your perspective) the rules on this were intentionally left vague by the designers, meaning that both sides of this are house rules.  That being said a lot of what creates fun in games is a level of risk and tension, that's why games have skills and damage tracks and I believe that is a great roll that the Laws of magic can play and that it makes the game more fun and interesting if your players know that there is potential danger not only for there character's health but for their soul as well.

As an aside in comparing a lot of this to the novels I believe that one of the reasons you don't see a lot of non-lethal spells is because they are difficult, and not universally useful. Throwing energy wildly at someone is not hard, but having to focus or refine that energy into something precise or restrained enough to incapacitate mortals without hurting them sounds pretty hard. And the fact that the whole supernatural world is trying to stay hidden means the less one interacts with mortals at all the better. Seems to me that Dresden is actually bucking the trend (what with his one mortal encounter a year) with this so he might really want to look into some non-lethal spells, however given his aspects it doesn't seem likely.

And this is one place that unfortunately diverges from the game, because 'non-lethal' spells aren't any more difficult than lethal spells, which is why I don't accept that simply a clever description can make an attack guaranteed non-lethal.

[Becq]

I think that I'll take away the following from this discussion:

1) Per the rules, the attacker describes his method of attack (magical or nonmagical) as he sees fit, within the bounds set by the rules and tempered by common sense.  If he wants the attack to be non-lethal, he should expect to be able to make a compelling case for the lethality or lack thereof.
2) The group is not required to agree with the attacker's assessment of the attack's lethality.  This decision will be influenced heavily by the type of game the group wants to play.
3) If the decision is that the attack description is reasonable, then the attacker retains narrative control over a take-out, and even concessions must be limited by the description.
4) If the group disagrees with the non-lethality of the attack as described, then the attacker has the option to revise his attack.  If he goes ahead with the lethal attack, then he does so with the understanding that the GM might choose a lethal concession, if he feels that best suits the situation and the campaign.  Note that just because an attack *could* be lethal or even should *likely* be lethal, doesn't mean that it *must* be.

I think that these guidelines allow for most of the viewpoints expressed earlier in the thread, but rely more on a group consensus as to how to handle lethality, rather that defining a specific formula that *must* be applied.  Technically they represent more of a framework by which the RAW can be applied rather than new mechanics.

Some (occasionally silly) examples of my views regarding adjudication:
Ex: The attacker wants to incapacitate someone non-lethally by wrapping a grenade in bubble-wrap and inserting it into the opponent's mouth.  The group respectfully disagrees that this constitutes a non-lethal attack.
Ex: The attacker wants to cast a telekinetic spell to knock his target out by hitting him in the head with a chair, noting that his character has the aspect "I've been in many a brawl in my time" and therefore has experience in such matters.  The group agrees, and decides that it would probably be reasonable even for someone without such experience to wield a chair non-lethally.
Ex: The attacker wants to use a force spell to shatter a window and drive a cloud of glass shards -- non-lethally -- at his foe.  The group notes that he is using a force 12 spell and decides that it really isn't possible for a chaotic cloud of razor-sharp shards driven by that amount of force to be used in a deliberately non-lethal manner, and that if the spell inflicts more than double the stress necessary to take the foe out, then death will result.  The attacker decided to rethink the attack.
Ex: The attacker wants to shoot a foe's kneecap out with his sniper rifle from his concealed position on a nearby roof.  He has the maneuver-generated aspect "Plenty of time to aim" and the character aspect "I was the most decorated sniper in my outfit, back in the war..."   The players decide that he's eminently qualified to ensure a shot that is not immediately lethal ... but note that the target will probably need some medical attention fairly quickly.

[sinker]

While I'm sure there are more experienced gaming groups out there we are certainly not 'inexperience' and my position doesn't come from a place of my group is not mature or good enough at the game not to need the rule.  My position is that if you put that decision entirely in the hands of the players you remove a necessary element of tension from them game.  The reason that there are rules in RPGs is to give a structure for the story and create the mood of whatever the game is attempting to recreate.  Tension in games is exceedingly valuable and is never more evident than when the players interact with a take out mechanic, and my position is that the Law of Magic we intended to be used in that way.

That being said, of course both sides are valid, I've said so several times in this conversation, I'm simply arguing what I believe was the designers intent.

That really wasn't a veiled attempt to slight you or your group. Merely a situation that I could see your rule working well with. Some people require structure from their games and this provides a bit of it.

The funny thing is I was actually trying to defend you to others. I can see this being good. I don't think it's necessary for my group, but I certainly don't think it's "wrong".

I have never suggested not discussing this sort of thing with your group, as you should every house rule, and unfortunately (or fortunately dependent on your perspective) the rules on this were intentionally left vague by the designers, meaning that both sides of this are house rules.  That being said a lot of what creates fun in games is a level of risk and tension, that's why games have skills and damage tracks and I believe that is a great roll that the Laws of magic can play and that it makes the game more fun and interesting if your players know that there is potential danger not only for there character's health but for their soul as well.

Also not trying to argue with you here. Just stating that one can have fun without implementing a rule like this. You don't have to force tension on people who may not enjoy it. Which I suppose is a bit of an argument but I really didn't intend it to be.

And this is one place that unfortunately diverges from the game, because 'non-lethal' spells aren't any more difficult than lethal spells, which is why I don't accept that simply a clever description can make an attack guaranteed non-lethal.

And yeah this was just a random thought.

[luminos]

@Becq:  Those examples illustrate a reasonable way to handle things.  Happy gaming.

[Tallyrand]

That really wasn't a veiled attempt to slight you or your group. Merely a situation that I could see your rule working well with. Some people require structure from their games and this provides a bit of it.

The funny thing is I was actually trying to defend you to others. I can see this being good. I don't think it's necessary for my group, but I certainly don't think it's "wrong".

I apologize, for the majority of this conversation I've been the only one defending my position so I'm sure you can understand why I was beginning to become defensive.  I do understand that you were intending to take a moderate view on the subject I just didn't want anyone to be tempted to dismiss my arguments due to some perceived inexperience.

Also not trying to argue with you here. Just stating that one can have fun without implementing a rule like this. You don't have to force tension on people who may not enjoy it. Which I suppose is a bit of an argument but I really didn't intend it to be.

Oh, and I understand that completely, most of the people in this conversation seem to be in agreement so far as how someone should deal with this issue at there table (by discussing with the players and coming to a common agreement).  The only point I was really arguing is what I think best replicates the world of the novels and what I believe the writers of the game intended.

[LokiTM]

Is it possible to intentionally kill a thread?

[bitterpill]

Is it possible to intentionally kill a thread?

Laser Sword through the brain or you could do the exploding heart tecnique if you want to get really nasty.

[Brand]

I know I'm fairly late to the debate here, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

In my game, the players have control of Taken Out results (assuming they're reasonable) but people can still die accidentally.  The Laws, especially the First, can still be broken unintentionally.

For example, say Sorcerer X puts together a nasty spell with the intention of using it to kill the evil undead necromancer that is threatening the city.  The party tracks down the target and the sorcerer lays a trap.  Unfortunately, the person the group is actually setting up happens to be the NPC treasure hunter using his Item of Power (a ring that allows for Glamour-like powers) to casually make his way through the hordes of zombies that have infested that part of the city.  One big boom later and the group's sorcerer finds himself standing over the body of a dead human.

That's a bit of an extreme example, and it would really only be a danger after the characters failed an assessment to recognize someone was impersonating the Big Bad, but it's the sort of thing that could happen.  I also allow for redirecting incoming spell energy (think Harry causing the frozen turkey to fall on the BC vamp's head), so it's also entirely possible an enemy warlock/wizard could cause a lethal spell to be redirected onto an innocent bystander.

[Larin]

I know I'm also fairly late to the debate here, but I thought I'd also throw in my two cents.

after 10 pages I can't remember if this has been mentioned yet:
You might also want to consider feedback.  If you throw a lot of shifts, you are more likely not control all of it, and that can also be a way to accidentally break the 1st law.

[sinker]

For example, say Sorcerer X puts together a nasty spell with the intention of using it to kill the evil undead necromancer that is threatening the city.  The party tracks down the target and the sorcerer lays a trap.  Unfortunately, the person the group is actually setting up happens to be the NPC treasure hunter using his Item of Power (a ring that allows for Glamour-like powers) to casually make his way through the hordes of zombies that have infested that part of the city.  One big boom later and the group's sorcerer finds himself standing over the body of a dead human.

That's a bit of an extreme example, and it would really only be a danger after the characters failed an assessment to recognize someone was impersonating the Big Bad, but it's the sort of thing that could happen.  I also allow for redirecting incoming spell energy (think Harry causing the frozen turkey to fall on the BC vamp's head), so it's also entirely possible an enemy warlock/wizard could cause a lethal spell to be redirected onto an innocent bystander.

These seem like sort of "Surprise, you're dead" (or in this case your character has gone off the deep end) kind of situations, and I'm less a fan of those.