Giving teeth to enforcement of The Laws

[Steppenwolf]

Wow, please god promise me that you will NEVER work crowd control for the army.  Ok, people can die and die quickly from gunshots to the leg, there is no 'safe but affected' distance from a shrapnel propelling grenade and firing a rocket into a crowd in any circumstances is a great way of killing a bunch of people in a crowd.

And people cannot die from a bullet in the chest if it hits non-vital parts.

However Sinker told a great truth.
We are not talking about RL or a RL-simulation. We are talking about FATE system, so the general way to handle lethal weapons should be discussed by the whole group in advance.
If you want to put lethal consequences for weapons it's your free choice.

For me, a zone-wide spell can be non lethal, but I would'nt allow lethal and non-lethal effects in the same zone.

[Tallyrand]

I think "could not possibly be lethal" is a bit too strong a challenge, since even a toothpick could "possibly be lethal".  But I think you're asking the reverse: describe a spell that "could consistently be non-lethal".

Lightsaber Strike
Fire Evocation:
Weapon:6 Offensive Attack
Fluff: Automatically cauterizes wounds as it cuts.  This could easily kill, but could just as reasonably chop off limbs and leave the victim alive.

Vertigo Wave
Earth Evocation:
Weapon: 4 Offensive Zone Attack
Fluff: Creates minor fluctuations in gravity within a zone, which play havoc with the target's sense of balance.  Common consequences are "mild nausea" (minor), "motion sickness" (moderate), or "long-term balance issues" (severe)

Bacchanalia
Summer Evocation
Weapon: 5 Offensive Zone Attack
Fluff: Recreates the physical symptoms of inebriation in the target.  Common consequences are "euphoria" (minor), "lethargy" (moderate), "stupor" or "blackouts" (severe)

Vertigo Wave is, IMO, better represented by Maneuvers and attacks.  An attack the created the effects of drunkenness would be an attack against the Mental or perhaps Social track.  Otherwise could also be represented by Maneuvers more easily than as an attack.

In so far as the 'Light Saber' attack it's not well represented by DFRPG at all, I'd place that as more of a weakness of the system than a weakness of my argument.  Really the only thing you can do with a Light Saber is either kill or inflict Severe or Extreme consequences, we never see anyone 'nicked' in a light saber battle and it seems to me that that is for a reason.

[Tedronai]

we never see anyone 'nicked' in a light saber battle and it seems to me that that is for a reason.

It's also difficult to justify a direct hit from a tractor-trailer rig travelling at highway speeds as inflicting anything short of severe consequences.
That's why you twist your ankle in your (otherwise successful) attempt to move out of the way as a minor consequence.

[Tallyrand]

And people cannot die from a bullet in the chest if it hits non-vital parts.

However Sinker told a great truth.
We are not talking about RL or a RL-simulation. We are talking about FATE system, so the general way to handle lethal weapons should be discussed by the whole group in advance.
If you want to put lethal consequences for weapons it's your free choice.

For me, a zone-wide spell can be non lethal, but I would'nt allow lethal and non-lethal effects in the same zone.

At no point have I said it's impossible to hit someone with a Weapon: 3 or more attack without killing them, only that IMO it's impossible to do so and guarantee you won't kill someone.

The FATE system is used to represent various levels of RL and that it rather than some other system is being used isn't in itself relevant to the problem.  The Dresden Files happens to be on the high end of the RL scale so far as Fate games are concerned.  Harry worries constantly about accidentally killing in the book and an entire section of the book is devoted to the Laws of magic to make plain their dramatic weight in the game.  If becoming a Law Breaker in game is no different than taking a stunt to become an Auto Mechanic then it's dramatic weight is stripped away entirely.

I agree completely that any decision made about a Dresden files game that it's spelled out completely in the book should be discussed with your play group, I have not in anyway suggested otherwise.  I'm simply making the argument for what I believe the designers intended.

I'm not sure at all what your last sentence means.  I've not argued against zone wide attacks at all (in fact when this conversation came up in my group I suggested to one of our high conviction wizards that if he didn't want to feel he was wasting his potential power he could simply do a Weapon: 2 attack over a zone rather than his normal Weapon: 5 attack), and I'm not sure what you mean by combining Lethal and Non-Lethal zone effects.

[bitterpill]

An attack the created the effects of drunkenness would be an attack against the Mental or perhaps Social track.  Otherwise could also be represented by Maneuvers more easily than as an attack.

Alchol is a poison and the majority of its effects are physical so it is perfectly reasonable to call an attack the created the effects of drunkenness a physical one.

[Tallyrand]

It's also difficult to justify a direct hit from a tractor-trailer rig travelling at highway speeds as inflicting anything short of severe consequences.
That's why you twist your ankle in your (otherwise successful) attempt to move out of the way as a minor consequence.

Ok, I'm not sure how people are taking the argument "Weapon: 3 or greater attacks are potentially lethal" and are taking out of it "It is impossible to survive a Weapon: 3 or greater attack."

Yeah, if the stress you take from a Mac Truck is low enough that you can take a Minor consequence and survive it then narrating a twisted ankle is fine.  If, on the other hand, the damage you take necessitates a taken out result, and the dice have already been thrown, then it's with in a GM's prerogative to say death is on the table.

[Tallyrand]

Alchol is a poison and the majority of its effects are physical so it is perfectly reasonable to call an attack the created the effects of drunkenness a physical one.

Fine, if insist on a Weapon: 4 Alcohol physical effect then we have sudden cirrhosis of the liver, alcohol poisoning, and brain death as potential side effects of severe over drinking.

[Drachasor]

Drugging someone is MUCH better represented in this game by Maneuvers than by Attacks.

No it isn't.  You absolutely cannot knock someone out with a maneuver.  General anesthesia is impossible that way.  The same is true of putting someone to sleep.  Maneuvers are good at representing something that isn't going to last very long at all.  They are horrible at representing anything that is making someone get Taken Out.

The ridiculousness of your stance regarding weapon ratings is that you'd make it actually pretty impossible to put someone to sleep with a spell.  Instead you'd require they use a half dozen or more spells to get the job done.  That's silly.

As Sinker said, weapon ratings ARE abstract.  They give some guidelines in the rules for common weapon types, but fundamentally the weapon rating is about HOW EFFECTIVE the weapon is.  This effectiveness might be regarding lethal means (a sword or gun), or it could be something completely non-lethal (like an idealized taser, sleep spell, anesthetic or the like).  A high rating just means that if the attack hit, then it packs a good punch of WHATEVER.  That might be super sharp death; it could be lovely sleepy dreams; or any of an infinite number of other things.  This idea that weapons of a particular rating must be lethal is something you are making up which not only is not backed by the rules but also doesn't make sense for the reasons I've described.

If you GM a game and want to enforce a system where non-lethal methods cannot be all that effective, then that's your call (assuming your players are on board with that).  There's not a dang thing in the rules that requires this kind of play though or even says that's the intended way to go.

[ironpoet]

Vertigo Wave is, IMO, better represented by Maneuvers and attacks.  An attack the created the effects of drunkenness would be an attack against the Mental or perhaps Social track.  Otherwise could also be represented by Maneuvers more easily than as an attack.

You've stated that before in this thread, but I agree.  Maneuvers are a perfectly decent way to represent it, but not necessarily "better".  Maneuvers generally inflict short term effects, while attacks inflict longer lasting consequences which can't be removed by a counter-maneuver.  The intent of the attack is not to merely put the enemy "off balance" so we can hit them with another attack - it's to make them unable to physically function (i.e. to be Taken Out).

Drunkenness is a physical condition, generally opposed by Endurance.  I don't understand why you think it would attack the Mental track, and the consequences described were clearly Physical, not Social.  Also note that it's only recreating the physical effects, not the alcohol itself (although I admit I don't know what part of alcohol poisoning actually kills you - is it the alcohol or the endorphins?)

In so far as the 'Light Saber' attack it's not well represented by DFRPG at all, I'd place that as more of a weakness of the system than a weakness of my argument.  Really the only thing you can do with a Light Saber is either kill or inflict Severe or Extreme consequences, we never see anyone 'nicked' in a light saber battle and it seems to me that that is for a reason.

Vader arguably got "nicked" on his side during ROTJ (let me do a little Googling... http://www.thedentedhelmet.com/f22/vaders-armor-vs-lukes-lightsaber-37522/).  And just because we don't see it doesn't mean that a light saber couldn't "nick" someone.  Why do you think the Light Saber attack isn't well represented by the system?  What about my description doesn't fit the system?  How is it different from, say, a Warden Sword or a Sword of the Cross?

[Steppenwolf]

I'm not sure at all what your last sentence means.  I've not argued against zone wide attacks at all (in fact when this conversation came up in my group I suggested to one of our high conviction wizards that if he didn't want to feel he was wasting his potential power he could simply do a Weapon: 2 attack over a zone rather than his normal Weapon: 5 attack), and I'm not sure what you mean by combining Lethal and Non-Lethal zone effects.

Sorry I was interrupted while I was finishing the sentences.
I wanted to say that if you use a zone wide spell I will need a very reasonable explaination to allow you killing some people and letting live some other ones in the same zone.

[ironpoet]

At no point have I said it's impossible to hit someone with a Weapon: 3 or more attack without killing them, only that IMO it's impossible to do so and guarantee you won't kill someone.
...
I agree completely that any decision made about a Dresden files game that it's spelled out completely in the book should be discussed with your play group, I have not in anyway suggested otherwise.  I'm simply making the argument for what I believe the designers intended.

I think that's a perfectly legitimate house rule for a particular playstyle.  What I don't understand is why you think the designers intended it.  Why would they explicitly say "The player gets to describe the consequences of Taken Out" instead of "Weapon: 3+ attacks are likely to kill the target... well, mortals anyway, since vampires could probably survive it... and the GM should enforce that over the player's objections."?

[bitterpill]

Sorry I was interrupted while I was finishing the sentences.
I wanted to say that if you use a zone wide spell I will need a very reasonable explaination to allow you killing some people and letting live some other ones in the same zone.

I didn' think anyone was arguing against this position, area of effect magic is the same for everyone in the area the arguement is can you attack with a lot of force/potency and not kill them.

[Tallyrand]

No it isn't.  You absolutely cannot knock someone out with a maneuver.  General anesthesia is impossible that way.  The same is true of putting someone to sleep.  Maneuvers are good at representing something that isn't going to last very long at all.  They are horrible at representing anything that is making someone get Taken Out.

Is there a rule saying that there is no way for a maneuver to make someone unconcious?  If so then I'll look over things and find you a better way than a Weapon: 3+ attack to represent drugging.

The ridiculousness of your stance regarding weapon ratings is that you'd make it actually pretty impossible to put someone to sleep with a spell.  Instead you'd require they use a half dozen or more spells to get the job done.  That's silly.

I've been respectful, I'd ask that you do the same.  Sleep spells, aren't IMO easy magic, they require subtlety and control.  a Weapon: 2 attack from a high Discipline wizard could easily take someone out with one attack (and has an even higher likelihood of leading to a concession if a consequence if inflicted)

As Sinker said, weapon ratings ARE abstract.  They give some guidelines in the rules for common weapon types, but fundamentally the weapon rating is about HOW EFFECTIVE the weapon is.  This effectiveness might be regarding lethal means (a sword or gun), or it could be something completely non-lethal (like an idealized taser, sleep spell, anesthetic or the like).  A high rating just means that if the attack hit, then it packs a good punch of WHATEVER.  That might be super sharp death; it could be lovely sleepy dreams; or any of an infinite number of other things.  This idea that weapons of a particular rating must be lethal is something you are making up which not only is not backed by the rules but also doesn't make sense for the reasons I've described.

You say that, but it isn't supported by the rule book so CAPITALIZING words doesn't really strengthen your argument.  Neither of our arguments are backed up by the rules, but I can tell you that my argument is backed up at least by implication within the book.

YS 233: Fist paragraph after What Happens When You Break The Laws would be unnecessary if it was impossible to do so accidentally.

YS 236: The section after In your game makes no sense whatsoever if unintentionally killing is impossible.

YS 237: In the first paragraph after In your game

The Second Law isn't the sort of thing you can break accidentally, unlike the first.

[Tallyrand]

You've stated that before in this thread, but I agree.  Maneuvers are a perfectly decent way to represent it, but not necessarily "better".  Maneuvers generally inflict short term effects, while attacks inflict longer lasting consequences which can't be removed by a counter-maneuver.  The intent of the attack is not to merely put the enemy "off balance" so we can hit them with another attack - it's to make them unable to physically function (i.e. to be Taken Out).

Fair enough, I think this is a particular example where we simply have a fundimental disagrement over the rules, dangerously close to putting us into a 'No Real Scotsman" situation.  While I would defend that Maneuvers do lead to being unable to function (if nothing else than by adding 2 to later damage rolls or opening the door to compelling for damaging effects) due to Vertigo's inability to cause permanent physical effects I don't feel that it is well represented by a Weapon attack, especially by a Weapon attack with a value greater than 2.

[quoteDrunkenness is a physical condition, generally opposed by Endurance.  I don't understand why you think it would attack the Mental track, and the consequences described were clearly Physical, not Social.  Also note that it's only recreating the physical effects, not the alcohol itself (although I admit I don't know what part of alcohol poisoning actually kills you - is it the alcohol or the endorphins?)[/quote]

Exhaustion is also a physical condition generally resisted by Endurance but is still listed as an example under the Mental stress track.  Similarly I could easily see in a social conflict at a bar using a Rapport maneuver or attack to inflict Sloppy Drunk or A Wee Bit Tipsy on someone.  That being said, as I stated earlier in this thread, even with a physical attack high levels of alcohol in the blood can be lethal.

Vader arguably got "nicked" on his side during ROTJ (let me do a little Googling... http://www.thedentedhelmet.com/f22/vaders-armor-vs-lukes-lightsaber-37522/).  And just because we don't see it doesn't mean that a light saber couldn't "nick" someone.  Why do you think the Light Saber attack isn't well represented by the system?  What about my description doesn't fit the system?  How is it different from, say, a Warden Sword or a Sword of the Cross?

Fair enough, but still I feel that DFRPG is in-ideal for representing light sabers, and beyond that we're talking about taken out results and if you hit someone with a light saber you will likely kill them.  In the example of Luke getting his hand cut off, I think that's a Concession after an Extreme (or perhaps even Severe or less since it was fixed in the next scene) consequence.

[tymire]

Guess one way you can resolve this is to see how much higher the attack/discipline roll was over the controll and defense rolls.  The greater difference the greater chance you can controll what happens.  Imo if you are taking backlash with a weapon 4+, the likelihood that you are  doing horrible things to them regardless of what you want, is much more minute likely.