Giving teeth to enforcement of The Laws

[sinker]

The way I figure out what is a maneuver and what is an attack is mostly due to intent. That is the intent of the player. Is the spell intended to create and advantageous situation or to assist a different action? Maneuver. Is it intended to gain a "taken out" result in the target? Attack.

The secondary method I use has to do with permanence. Does it last a very short time, or can it be countered? Maneuver. Is it intended to be an issue for a long time or something they can't immediately resolve? Attack.

A spirit invocation that induces sensory deprivation as a result, basically it makes you blind, deaf, mute, unable to smell or actively feel something with the sense of touch.Sort of overloading the senses causing them to fail temporarily (or not). Alternatively you could say this sensory overload causes blackout easily enough too.

In this instance I can see it being an attack from intent, however I dislike this being a permanent thing. If a consequence results from the attack that means that either you're constantly creating the effect (in which case you're constantly using energy as long as the consequence remains in place) or you're physically transforming them (Which is a no-no). In this case I'd probably side with Tallyrand and call it a maneuver, unless you could give me a reason.

[nearchus]

True, but when the "In your game' sections warn the players about the dangers accidentally killing that strongly suggests that it's possible for the players to accidentally kill.

Several people on the 'you can't accidentally kill in DFRPG' side keep coming at this as if your position was in some way factually supported by the rules.  It isn't, the rules are neutral on the subject as this is a very subjective game, my position is simply what I read as the intent of the games creators.  In addition I, and I belive this is why the creators would intend it this way, believe that providing the possibility for accidental killing makes the game more dynamic and dramatic and makes the story more interesting.  If any wizard can throw around almost any spell without fear of consequence then you don't really have Harry Dresden (who is constantly worried about the consequences of his actions), you have a a urban fantasy superhero who cockily blows up anything that gets into his way.  Tension and forcing characters (and players) to make hard decisions (Do I go all out and risk killing him or to I hold back and risk getting hit again?) are what good storytelling are made of so far as how I view it.

This is the second time you've made this claim. The rules *do* in fact, support the idea that only time an accidental death is going to happen is when a player decides that it happens.  The rule is that when a "Taken Out" effect happens, the person that does it gets to decide what happens. The sections you're talking about *never* say that it's possible for a player to have a character accidentally kill someone without their consent. What they do say is that you should discuss how the players should deal with these situations.

It says that you should discuss how important you want the First Law to be. The advice given is that you, as the player, shouldn't take these situations lightly because characters being played consistently with the Dresden Files setting wouldn't take these situations lightly. This is important because reasonable players *should* decide that their character has killed another when they use lethal force and this section encourages that. But you aren't required to. It doesn't say that in the section for "Taken Out" and it doesn't say it under the "In your game" sections despite your claim to the contrary.

The lack of any rules to support your claim makes it pretty clear that your interpretation of the writers "intent" is incorrect. Their "intent" is to stress that the players and the GM shouldn't throw around lethal magic and decide that they never kill anyone because this isn't in line with the setting. This is perfectly consistent with the rule that the player decides what happens when a "taken out" result happens.

[Tbora]

Yes, this is a house rule, as is saying that killing accidentally is impossible, as I've said several times before, neither is supported directly by the rules.

I don't think it's nerfed at all.  Evocation and Thaumaturgy are IMO inarguably the most potent expenditure of refresh in the game, and I think that the risk of law breaking is something that does a good job balancing them.  A wizard, without any obvious weapons and without preperation can throw a Weapon: 2 attack over a zone, that's the equivalent of shooting everyone in the area with a pistol.  That's VERY powerful and something that pretty much only Wizards can do and can do so with no chance of becoming a law breaker.  Alternatively when not dealing with a mortal a Wizard can throw a Weapon: 5 attack or higher at one or multiple targets at range with is something only replication perhaps by a super strong character throwing a truck, and again he can do this without preparation and completely by surprise.

If I was playing with a group who would not play unless Wizards were even more powerful, I probably wouldn't want to play with that group anyway to be perfectly honest.

I am not saying do it make wizards more powerful, but when you try to railroad their characters with threats of having to either "do as I say or retire the character" which is basically what happens when you limit what they can do with it. Perhaps instead of giving them a rebate you don't charge for the Lawbreaker in question when you have them take it? I mean the twisting of aspects, and sending the Wardens after them seems to be to be penalty enough, and much more fun from an RPing perspective then making them create a new PC entirely.

I disagree, and again I think that the designers disagree as well.  If pushing someone off a building is sufficiently direct to gain lawbreaker, then lighting that building of fires is so as well.

What are we disagreeing on here exactly we both agree that lighting a building on fire and some mook dying inside it and pushing someone off a building is a lawbreaker. Thats because its a direct action on your part, something YOU did to cause it that directly resulted in the death. Secondary effects like the wardens binding someone in place with a spell then lopping their heads off with their swords is not a lawbreaker, likewise neither is blinding them, and they walk in front of a 70 mile per hour traffic. You did not cause their deaths, at all, that was all secondary. Its perfectly stated as such in the books, else how could the Wardens NOT get 1st Lawbreaker every time they hold a summary execution?

[Tallyrand]

This is the second time you've made this claim. The rules *do* in fact, support the idea that only time an accidental death is going to happen is when a player decides that it happens.  The rule is that when a "Taken Out" effect happens, the person that does it gets to decide what happens. The sections you're talking about *never* say that it's possible for a player to have a character accidentally kill someone without their consent. What they do say is that you should discuss how the players should deal with these situations.

It says that you should discuss how important you want the First Law to be. The advice given is that you, as the player, shouldn't take these situations lightly because characters being played consistently with the Dresden Files setting wouldn't take these situations lightly. This is important because reasonable players *should* decide that their character has killed another when they use lethal force and this section encourages that. But you aren't required to. It doesn't say that in the section for "Taken Out" and it doesn't say it under the "In your game" sections despite your claim to the contrary.

The lack of any rules to support your claim makes it pretty clear that your interpretation of the writers "intent" is incorrect. Their "intent" is to stress that the players and the GM shouldn't throw around lethal magic and decide that they never kill anyone because this isn't in line with the setting. This is perfectly consistent with the rule that the player decides what happens when a "taken out" result happens.

What your saying, that killing accidentally isn't possible, isn't supported by the rules sense it says specifically that the Taken Out result must be reasonable.  What it at debate here is what is reasonable and what the designers intended reasonable to be, which isn't clearly stated by the rules. So to counter, the lack of any intent suggestion that it is impossible for a player to accidentally have his character kill someone makes it clear IMO that your interpretation is incorrect.  But again, it is never clearly stated either way.

[Steppenwolf]

But in the situation where the character has only one refresh it isn't a choice, that's what I'm saying.  A compel should ALWAYS be a choice (saving of course those situations where the character is without Fate chips).  When you're giving the player the choice of 'Save the thugs or become an NPC' what you're really doing is railroading them into saving the thugs.

I opened another topic cause in this one:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24566.0.html

Otherwise we risk dogpiling.

About Reasonable the answer is simply: what is reasonable for your group.

[Tbora]

In this instance I can see it being an attack from intent, however I dislike this being a permanent thing. If a consequence results from the attack that means that either you're constantly creating the effect (in which case you're constantly using energy as long as the consequence remains in place) or you're physically transforming them (Which is a no-no). In this case I'd probably side with Tallyrand and call it a maneuver, unless you could give me a reason.

Its not a transformation so much as major physical process. Heres what would happen on a step by step ladder (but it would happen all at once)

Generates a noise so loud you burst their eardrums, a light so bright they become blinded, so much stress on the vocal cords (sonic/kinetic energy perhaps?) and nerve endings that they fail as a bodies defense mechanism to limit damage to itself and keep the mind from fracturing,  and I can't think of a reasonable way for smell to fail so they still have that, but for the immediate effects the person in question would be so disoriented it would hardly matter.  None of this need be phrased as permanent, just just long term enough for them not to pop up again for the length of the session/campaign.Now for all of this would probably require a VERY high discipline to do, so it would probably have to be done as a Rote Spell to pull it off without backlash or anything.

[Tallyrand]

I am not saying do it make wizards more powerful, but when you try to railroad their characters with threats of having to either "do as I say or retire the character" which is basically what happens when you limit what they can do with it. Perhaps instead of giving them a rebate you don't charge for the Lawbreaker in question when you have them take it? I mean the twisting of aspects, and sending the Wardens after them seems to be to be penalty enough, and much more fun from an RPing perspective then making them create a new PC entirely.

I'm not saying do as I say or retire your character, I'm saying that if you do certain things you risk retiring your character.  Similarly if a character pissed on the leg of the Winter Queen I would feel fully justified in removing that character from the game.  I feel that drama and good story comes from limitations, and if there are no limitations on characters then there is simply no reason to have a rule book at all, and don't get me wrong that can be fun to, it just isn't DFRPG.

What are we disagreeing on here exactly we both agree that lighting a building on fire and some mook dying inside it and pushing someone off a building is a lawbreaker. Thats because its a direct action on your part, something YOU did to cause it that directly resulted in the death. Secondary effects like the wardens binding someone in place with a spell then lopping their heads off with their swords is not a lawbreaker, likewise neither is blinding them, and they walk in front of a 70 mile per hour traffic. You did not cause their deaths, at all, that was all secondary. Its perfectly stated as such in the books, else how could the Wardens NOT get 1st Lawbreaker every time they hold a summary execution?

When did I suggest that killing with a Wardens sword might garner the Law Breaker power?  We're not disagreeing on how direct magic has to be to count against the power, we're disagreeing on how far someone can push an attack before the put themselves at risk of killing someone.

[sinker]

Its not a transformation so much as major physical process. Heres what would happen on a step by step ladder (but it would happen all at once)

Generates a noise so loud you burst their eardrums, a light so bright they become blinded, so much stress on the vocal cords (sonic/kinetic energy perhaps?) and nerve endings that they fail as a bodies defense mechanism to limit damage to itself and keep the mind from fracturing,  and I can't think of a reasonable way for smell to fail so they still have that, but for the immediate effects the person in question would be so disoriented it would hardly matter.  None of this need be phrased as permanent, just just long term enough for them not to pop up again for the length of the session/campaign.Now for all of this would probably require a VERY high discipline to do, so it would probably have to be done as a Rote Spell to pull it off without backlash or anything.

That's a reason. Though a particularly vicious and unpleasant sounding one, and not one that seems entirely without risk.

[sinker]

I feel that drama and good story comes from limitations, and if there are no limitations on characters then there is simply no reason to have a rule book at all, and don't get me wrong that can be fun to, it just isn't DFRPG.

A question one could ask is whose responsibility is this?

[Tallyrand]

Its not a transformation so much as major physical process. Heres what would happen on a step by step ladder (but it would happen all at once)

Generates a noise so loud you burst their eardrums, a light so bright they become blinded, so much stress on the vocal cords (sonic/kinetic energy perhaps?) and nerve endings that they fail as a bodies defense mechanism to limit damage to itself and keep the mind from fracturing,  and I can't think of a reasonable way for smell to fail so they still have that, but for the immediate effects the person in question would be so disoriented it would hardly matter.  None of this need be phrased as permanent, just just long term enough for them not to pop up again for the length of the session/campaign.Now for all of this would probably require a VERY high discipline to do, so it would probably have to be done as a Rote Spell to pull it off without backlash or anything.

But any noise loud enough to deafen someone permanently (or temporarily but potentially for years) can also potentially kill them.

[bitterpill]

But any noise loud enough to deafen someone permanently (or temporarily but potentially for years) can also potentially kill them.

The majority of the time people go deaf from loud noises before there head explodes and the majority of the time is enough of the time to declare that they are deaf or unconsious from the pain of burst ear drums.

[Tallyrand]

The majority of the time people go deaf from loud noises before there head explodes and the majority of the time is enough of the time to declare that they are deaf or unconsious from the pain of burst ear drums.

Actually generally when a noise is enough to kill someone it's because their lungs collapsed, and I agree most of the time people don't die, but then most of the time the noise isn't weaponized and very rarely really will a single loud noise cause permanent deafness.

[Tedronai]

Actually generally when a noise is enough to kill someone it's because their lungs collapsed, and I agree most of the time people don't die, but then most of the time the noise isn't weaponized and very rarely really will a single loud noise cause permanent deafness.

And all that is being aimed for here is temporary deafness of meaningful duration.  They'll recover in a few days or weeks.

[Tallyrand]

And all that is being aimed for here is temporary deafness of meaningful duration.  They'll recover in a few days or weeks.

If you were aiming at that then doing it as a Weapon: 3 attack was a big mistake on your part.  Weapon: 3 could easily cause 7-8 stress to a character or more.  That very well could call for a Severe consequence which by the rules could last for months or years.  Till the end of the next story is a VERY long time, remember that each book represents one story and about 1 year of Harry's life.  Even in my game which has a much more accelerated time line would see a Severe consequence lasting for 6 months or so.  And then of course you may just succeed well enough to cause an Extreme consequence which would be permanent.

[Tbora]

I'm not saying do as I say or retire your character, I'm saying that if you do certain things you risk retiring your character.  Similarly if a character pissed on the leg of the Winter Queen I would feel fully justified in removing that character from the game.  I feel that drama and good story comes from limitations, and if there are no limitations on characters then there is simply no reason to have a rule book at all, and don't get me wrong that can be fun to, it just isn't DFRPG.

I think your trying to create a blanket ruling on what *is* DFRPG and what is *not* which I believe is a mistake. To use your example of pissing on the Winter Queens leg, first what is more fun, out right killing that character/rendering it into an NPC, or making the characters life hell, but in a dramatic and sufficiently cool fashion as a result. Maybe instead of killing the PC the Winter Queen decides the PC in question now owes her a HUGE debt because of the insult offered, which mechanically could be represented with a bunch of points of sponsor debt that must be payed off in story.

 This not just provides plot hooks, but also creates something interesting out of the situation. Similarly things like Lawbreakers should be used to make the game more interesting for the players in question, NOT arbitrarily punish them which from (again what I can tell I may be wrong) you seem to think is what they exist for. If your using the Lawbreakers to punish characters, then I think their a problem with communication and difference in play style between the GM and the players and that is a much deeper issue that would need to be resolved in entirety.

When did I suggest that killing with a Wardens sword might garner the Law Breaker power?  We're not disagreeing on how direct magic has to be to count against the power, we're disagreeing on how far someone can push an attack before the put themselves at risk of killing someone.

The wardens sword is just one example, my point is, is that the grade of the attack in question is just its potency, not its effect. All that is purely apart of the metagame, not all of magic is blasts of fire and bursts of lightning which is what seems to be your point of view (from what I can tell I very well could be wrong), I see no reason why you couldn't do as I suggested above, its just as effective but with far more finesse which so long as it fits the character concept I see no problem with it.

But any noise loud enough to deafen someone permanently (or temporarily but potentially for years) can also potentially kill them.

Umm http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2298/can-a-noise-be-loud-enough-to-kill-you

So its technically possible just REALLY unlikely given the level of noise needed to pull it off. Their is a big "safe" zone for driving someone deaf but not dead atleast according to this article.