Giving teeth to enforcement of The Laws

[Richard_Chilton]

Well I know I have atleast one high powered spell that would not be fatal in pretty much any circumstance.

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.

We see something exactly like this with Molly's One Woman Rave spell (if less complete in its effects).

I can think of many circumstances when that would be fatal.  it the target is driving a car, piloting a plane, etc then they could die.

Which is another way of saying that any spell can be fatal under the right circumstances.  Any spell.  Back in the days of AD&D (first ed) I saw people use a cantrip to cause death.

Well, almost any spell.

There's a great series of books called the Night Watch series, where the Good Guys are the Good Guys.  Seriously, if they do something bad they either go demonic or will themselves to Fade (basically dying).  There's one scene with someone on the Good Side unleashes a killing attack on someone on the Bad Side and half a dozen Good Guys will themselves to Fade because they were associated with the killing and they couldn't live with themselves.  This isn't an external thing - only their guilt taking them.

In that series the Good Guys had a sleep spell that breaks the laws of the DV.  It took about 5  to 10 minutes to take effect and during that time it urged everyone to move to safe spots.  Drivers would pull over the side of the road.  People would sit down.  Others would put away anything dangerous.
Why?
Because if someone suddenly fell asleep and crashed his car then the Good Guy who cast the spell would will himself to Fade.  Even knowing that some innocent person (i.e. any normal who wasn't allied to the Bad Guys) might die would be enough to make someone Fade when he started casting that spell - and he'd go before he could finish the spell.  As it is they worry about 'what if someone has a heart attack and there's no one there to help him because everyone's asleep' and other issue like that - because they are the Good Guys.

Heck, killing one of the Bad Guys and then realising that the Bad Guy might not have been doing evil at that time could cause someone to Fade... Dresden has it easy by comparison.

Richard

[Tallyrand]

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.

Personally I think it's more fun not having players who don't consider the consequences of their characters actions.  I put the guy who pisses on the queen's leg in the Dresden files in the same camp as the guy who kills another party member in his sleep.  That's why I think it's important to let your players know that there are limits to what their characters can do without consequence.

Let me make this clear though, I don't think there's a right way or a wrong way to play the Dresden files, and I have in no way ridiculed anyone else's style of play (despite the fact that mine has been ridiculed).  I have simply made my arguments for the style of play I find most interesting and fun and that I believe is closer to the intents of the writers of the rules.

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.

What I'm recommending is the opposite of arbitrary, I'm recommending creating a rule and sticking with it.  What I recommend isn't a means of punishing characters, but a means of allowing the characters to know where they are pushing their limits.

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.

I've read the book but obviously I can't keep it all in my head at once.  Where does it state that the Weapon power of an attack only represents it's potency? (not being snarky or sarcastic, just want to be able to read that bit for myself)

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.

Right, and I'd say that safe zone likes between Weapon:0 and Weapon: 2.

PS: And for me real life calls, I will return to this discussion when I have more time, probably in about 10 hours.

[Drachasor]

Personally I think it's more fun not having players who don't consider the consequences of their characters actions.  I put the guy who pisses on the queen's leg in the Dresden files in the same camp as the guy who kills another party member in his sleep.  That's why I think it's important to let your players know that there are limits to what their characters can do without consequence.

And you think if a player goes to the trouble of designing a spell attack specifically designed to not be lethal, then he isn't considering the consequences of his action?  He pays for that spell too.  Either he spends an enchanted item or potion slot on it, or it is or isn't a rote.  If it is a rote, then he has sacrificed one of his rote slots.  If it isn't, then he has more trouble pulling off the non-lethal attack.  Any way you slice it, a player making a non-lethal attack HAS decided to consider the consequences.

Those sections of the book you quoted 4-some pages ago in no way indicate that it is unreasonable to have particular attacks that are non-lethal despite the stress inflicted.  There's plenty of ways to make someone pass out without risking death.  You might even pay for this sort of thing in other ways as well.  If you make a vertigo spell that screws around with the inner-ear, then chances are it won't work on a lot of supernatural creatures.  I'm not convinced that Red Court Vampires are vulnerable to heat exhaustion either (White Court probably are, on the other hand).  Beyond that, you've also made a spell that WON'T be capable of killing your enemies, which very often can be quite significant if you can't stay around to "manually adjust" the outcome of a spell.

Remember too, spell strength is how complex the spell is.  So if anything a 10-complexity Heat Exhaustion spell might be SAFER than a 4-complexity one.  That 10-complexity could go to specifically targeting the aspects of the body that make the heat exhaustion safe and highly effective.  Just happens that spending the extra strength on focusing the spell's magic that way also makes it more effective.  So overall I don't see how you can possibly say that a weapon greater than X must be lethal.  It IS completely arbitrary where you draw the line.  Of course, naturally if you have a highly complex spell like this and you can't quite control it, going the route of fallout might be a bad idea (depending on your group).

[Drachasor]

I can think of many circumstances when that would be fatal.  it the target is driving a car, piloting a plane, etc then they could die.

Which is another way of saying that any spell can be fatal under the right circumstances.  Any spell.  Back in the days of AD&D (first ed) I saw people use a cantrip to cause death.

Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the weapon rating of a spell.  It only has to do with highly specific circumstances where ANY way of taking that person out is probably going to risk lethality unless you take a lot of extra precautions.  That's normal for any kind of attack, lethal or no.

[Becq]

Lots of great discussion!  A few arbitrary responses:

Regarding 'nonlethal' phrasing of spells.  Yes, I think it's possible to come up with powerful spells that inherently carry a low risk of lethality.  Perhaps, for example a well-controlled strangulation spell might qualify -- and if the character was trained in medicine (or combat subdual techniques) it might be stong justification for claiming the ability to apply the spell for just long enough to knock out the target without killing them.  Perhaps.

Other spells can't help but be basically lethal in nature.  Fire, for example, would pretty much always have a lethality that scaled with power.  Sure, you might justify a maneuver that applies "heatstroke" or a w:2 spell that causes burn damage without sigificant chance of death.  But a w:6 spell is more powerful than a military-grade flamethrower, and while its certainly possible the target might survive, it seems unreasonable to expect them to.  There's a reason Dresden avoids using this kind of spell against mortals.

Regarding refusal of concession, the attacker does not have a flat-out right to refuse.  Rather, the group has the right to decide that the concession is unreasonable, generally on the basis that it goes too easy on the conceeding character.  The attacker would need to come up with a convincing reason that having the target die is an unreasonable result of their action.

[Becq]

He should make that abundantly clear, which is not something that was done there.

I guess I'm not sure how much more clear it needs to be, to be honest.  To quote the scenario:

GM: "Are you sure you want to do that?  After all, you are talking about using LETHAL magic against a MORTAL foe.  A spell that powerful is almost guaranteed to kill them, which is a violation of the Laws of Magic."

Note also that I advocated giving yet another final chance at a take-back even after narrating the results.

By the way, as to adjudicating what constitutes 'lethal attacks' I think there is a lot of room for common sense and also for player input.  For example, a sniper rifle (w:4) would be a classic example of a lethal weapon.  And by the simple rule-of-thumb I suggested, a character who spent a few rounds maneuvering to get some extra aspects would almost certainly generate enough stress to trigger that lethality condition.  On the other hand, if the character made it abundantly clear that they were spending those maneuver drawing a bead on the target's *shin* ... well, I imagine the bullet would hurt quite a bit, and probably cripple the target for life -- but might not be *immediately* life-threatening, especially if medical attention was available.

[Steppenwolf]

Regarding refusal of concession, the attacker does not have a flat-out right to refuse.  Rather, the group has the right to decide that the concession is unreasonable, generally on the basis that it goes too easy on the conceeding character.  The attacker would need to come up with a convincing reason that having the target die is an unreasonable result of their action.

Well Concessions should be unanimously accepted, so also by the attacker.
Besides, the spirit of Concessions is to lessen the potential effects of the take out, not to increase them.
Using a Concession, to kill the character doing it, is just a bad twisting of that spirit.

[Becq]

(cont)
The basic concept that makes this possible is the weapon's precision and the character's deliberate control.  A flamethrower would probably be incapable of such a leg shot, and a flameburst spell would fall into that category.  A telekinetically accelerated penny might be capable of precision.  A light-saber could be aimed, as well.  A grenade thrown into a room filled with people might not kill them all ... but there will almost certainly be deaths.

With regards to the abstract storytelling nature of the system ... I agree.  And to a very large degree, whether or not a mechanic like this is appropriate depends on the group and the nature of the campaign.  But I'd argue that the risk of death and the risk of accidentally or deliberately killing is very much a core concept of Dresden Files, and therefore stressing that care must be taken when wielding magic is certainly not inappropriate.

As an aside ... what element would 'Vertigo Wave' be?  

[Becq]

Regarding the discussion involving "taken out" and "concession":

Once the dice are rolled, a taken out result is in the hands of the attacker.  The attacker can narrate any reasonable result he chooses.  I would argue that dropping a nuclear bomb on a city then narrating how everyone woke up with severe burns and massive headaches but unlimately recovered would not qualify as reasonable.  Likewise, setting off a force 12 flame burst attack in a crowd would not reasonably result in universal heavy tans and mild concussions.  But within reason, the attacker controls the story.

Before the dice are rolled (I made a mistake in the OP by allowing the attacker to roll first) the defender can conceed and control the narration.  Again, the limits are, basically, that the narration must be reasonable.  Generally, concession is used to allow the character to narrate his survival, but there are no upper limits on the severity of a concession narration.  But even so, it must be reasonable.  If a 45-pound (mundane) child slaps a vampire, there's virtually no chance that the vampire's head will go flying off in a shower of blood, driving itself clean through the torso of the vampire behind him.

[Tedronai]

As an aside ... what element would 'Vertigo Wave' be?  

I can envision methods of achieving the result within the scope of Earth, Water, and (possibly Lawbreakingly) Spirit

[Becq]

Using a Concession, to kill the character doing it, is just a bad twisting of that spirit.

Well, to be fair, my point is not to use mechanics as a gotcha.  Instead, the idea is to present a way -- within the system -- of making the Laws of Magic able to be enforced.  Imagine how the novels would be different if Dresden was confident that you could cast "Fuego!" at anyone he wanted and know exactly what the outcome would be?  Careful spellcasters, who keep the Laws in mind when casting should never be impacted by the use of the rules I'm suggesting.  Reckless spellcasters, whose players deliberately abuse the game mechanics to avoid dealing with the Laws should be made aware of the potential results of their misuse of magic first ... and if they refuse to abide by the Laws, well that's what Lawbreakers are there for, right?

Depends on the game, of course.  If the players and GM mutually agree they want a game in which magic is thrown around with abandon, and in which the Laws play little role ... well, they can always choose to ignore or even remove the Laws from their game, should the choose, or to use the current standard application of the mechanics that basically treat the laws as an RP option.

[Steppenwolf]

Once the dice are rolled, a taken out result is in the hands of the attacker.  The attacker can narrate any reasonable result he chooses.  I would argue that dropping a nuclear bomb on a city then narrating how everyone woke up with severe burns and massive headaches but unlimately recovered would not qualify as reasonable.  Likewise, setting off a force 12 flame burst attack in a crowd would not reasonably result in universal heavy tans and mild concussions.  But within reason, the attacker controls the story.

I think a flaw of the whole discussion is we have forgot that intent precedes the mechanics.

Players, IMHO, should never state: "I use a force 12 flame burst attack" but the whole discussion should be like the following:
Player: "I'm going to take out the whole crowd with a <element> spell"
GM:"What kind of spell?"
P:"<reasonable method to use non-lethal force>"
G:"Ok! This is an attack spell 'cause your aim is to incapacitate them. How many shifts?"
etc.etc.

From this perspective, all becomes simpler.

[toturi]

But I'd argue that the risk of death and the risk of accidentally or deliberately killing is very much a core concept of Dresden Files, and therefore stressing that care must be taken when wielding magic is certainly not inappropriate.

I would argue that the risk of death and the risk of accidentally or deliberately killing is very much a core concept of Dresden Files only because most of the Dresden File novel series is told from the perspective of Harry Dresden and his struggle to control his power.
Let examine the other stories in the series where Harry does not play a starring role. The stories which Harry play bit parts or not at all doesn't particularly revolve around risk of accidentally killing or taking care when wielding magic. In fact, if I recall correctly, Marcone's story opens with him blowing some unfortunate's brains out. Toe-moss's story has little to do about killing with magic (except perhaps on the receiving end of a spell).

[Tallyrand]

Ok, back to work...

And you think if a player goes to the trouble of designing a spell attack specifically designed to not be lethal, then he isn't considering the consequences of his action?  He pays for that spell too.  Either he spends an enchanted item or potion slot on it, or it is or isn't a rote.  If it is a rote, then he has sacrificed one of his rote slots.  If it isn't, then he has more trouble pulling off the non-lethal attack.  Any way you slice it, a player making a non-lethal attack HAS decided to consider the consequences.

To me, this isn't the person considering the consequences of their choices, it's attempting to avoid them.  Personally I see players going through convoluted explanations of how their spell is non-lethal to be basically The Dresden Files form of Min-Maxing, and if it was intended to be that way you'd have to ask yourself why Harry doesn't spend all of his time learning guaranteed non-lethal spells rather than constantly throwing around fire balls. (yes I know that Harry is in the novels not the game, but still the novels are what the rules are supposed to evoke)

Those sections of the book you quoted 4-some pages ago in no way indicate that it is unreasonable to have particular attacks that are non-lethal despite the stress inflicted.  There's plenty of ways to make someone pass out without risking death.  You might even pay for this sort of thing in other ways as well.  If you make a vertigo spell that screws around with the inner-ear, then chances are it won't work on a lot of supernatural creatures.  I'm not convinced that Red Court Vampires are vulnerable to heat exhaustion either (White Court probably are, on the other hand).  Beyond that, you've also made a spell that WON'T be capable of killing your enemies, which very often can be quite significant if you can't stay around to "manually adjust" the outcome of a spell.

They don't indicate any level of stress that may cause death no, but what they do indicate is an intent that the choice of whether an enemy dies isn't always in the hands of the player.  Also, not for nothing, but personally I would rather sit with my group and agree what level of spell is or is not lethal than have an argument back and forth every day about whether Fairies have an inner ear or what the relative alcohol tolerance of a hexenwolf is.

Remember too, spell strength is how complex the spell is.  So if anything a 10-complexity Heat Exhaustion spell might be SAFER than a 4-complexity one.  That 10-complexity could go to specifically targeting the aspects of the body that make the heat exhaustion safe and highly effective.  Just happens that spending the extra strength on focusing the spell's magic that way also makes it more effective.  So overall I don't see how you can possibly say that a weapon greater than X must be lethal.  It IS completely arbitrary where you draw the line.  Of course, naturally if you have a highly complex spell like this and you can't quite control it, going the route of fallout might be a bad idea (depending on your group).

Ok, so this is actually factually incorrect, the number of shifts in a spell (of which Weapon value has a direct relation) is an indicator of the raw power of the spell not the relative complexity or control of it.  That's why shifts of power are limited by Conviction (raw power) instead of Discipline (control) and why Harry (a high Conviction middling Discipline caster) is described as being a powerhouse with little control in the early books.

[Tallyrand]

Lots of great discussion!  A few arbitrary responses:

Regarding 'nonlethal' phrasing of spells.  Yes, I think it's possible to come up with powerful spells that inherently carry a low risk of lethality.  Perhaps, for example a well-controlled strangulation spell might qualify -- and if the character was trained in medicine (or combat subdual techniques) it might be stong justification for claiming the ability to apply the spell for just long enough to knock out the target without killing them.  Perhaps.

See this is a point that I seem to be having trouble conveying, the idea of a 'Well controlled' spell of this or that sort.  Control over a spell (as represented by a Discipline roll) has as direct an effect on the damage as it's Weapon rating.  More successes = more control = more damage.  Meaning that a well controlled Weapon:2 strangulation spell would have just as good of odds of taking out an opponent as a poorly controlled Weapon: 5 squeeze your neck spell.  The difference being that the Weapon: 5 version you're saying "I'm going to poor a bunch of power intro squeezing that guys neck at the risk of not being able to control it completely" and with the Weapon: 2 your saying "I'm going to put just enough power into this to try to choke that guy into unconsciousness, I just hope that I can keep the pressure on enough to knock him out."

Other spells can't help but be basically lethal in nature.  Fire, for example, would pretty much always have a lethality that scaled with power.  Sure, you might justify a maneuver that applies "heatstroke" or a w:2 spell that causes burn damage without sigificant chance of death.  But a w:6 spell is more powerful than a military-grade flamethrower, and while its certainly possible the target might survive, it seems unreasonable to expect them to.  There's a reason Dresden avoids using this kind of spell against mortals.

This though is another problem I'd like to avoid, because after a little while especially if your game has lost a character to accidental Law Breaker, every wizard is going to be throwing around these convoluted spells designed to be incapable of killing.  Morgan create earthquakes, Ramirez shoots water lasers and Harry creates pillars of fire, and we have not seen one of them saw "Ok, I'm going to make this spell that prevents signals from traveling down the spinal cord to anything other than the involuntary muscles thereby creating a perfect paralysis" and so I don't think the writers of the game intended for us to do that either.