The Dresden Files > DFRPG
Questions about the Dresden Files RPG
SaintAndSinner:
--- Quote from: iago on February 12, 2010, 09:32:51 PM ---It's not just about the GM's side of things though, Scott -- but something's getting missed in the conversation here. It's the victim that describes the consequence, not the attacker. So bleeding out is only going to happen if the recipient is interested in that as an expression of a consequence or a concession... The attacker's only ever going to get to stipulate something like that if the attacker inflicts a taken out result.
So really, you'll see "bleeding out" when a GM does it to an NPC because that's what a PC is gunning for and the GM's all too happy to provide it. But I don't think you'll see a lot of PCs experiencing the same thing, unless they think it's an interesting way to concede or what-have-you.
--- End quote ---
You know, in practice I negotiate with the player over the best description on a Consequence. Didn't think about the implications of that 'house rule'. My players like me to describe injuries anyway since I'm pretty graphic. Hmmmm. I've liked having things like that happen and the players seem to like it too. Ever thought giving some options to Consequences like I mentioned above.
breaker:
--- Quote from: iago on February 12, 2010, 09:32:51 PM ---It's not just about the GM's side of things though, Scott -- but something's getting missed in the conversation here. It's the victim that describes the consequence, not the attacker. So bleeding out is only going to happen if the recipient is interested in that as an expression of a consequence or a concession... The attacker's only ever going to get to stipulate something like that if the attacker inflicts a taken out result.
So really, you'll see "bleeding out" when a GM does it to an NPC because that's what a PC is gunning for and the GM's all too happy to provide it. But I don't think you'll see a lot of PCs experiencing the same thing, unless they think it's an interesting way to concede or what-have-you.
--- End quote ---
So, as a GM, if you wanted to encourage players to take this unique Conciquence, you'd have to let it slip before hand that fate points could be on the way. Still cool, in my opinion, but I can see now why this wouldn't have been to strictly laid out in the books.
iago:
Yeah. Honestly I think each group will gravitate towards certain comfort zones in play. If someone's not that interested or hates being on the spot to come up with consequence descriptions, the GM's gonna dive in there and give a quick suggestion in all likelihood. There's nothing wrong with that really -- it's just that in terms of the *authority* going on in the system as written, the player's the final approver of that stuff... until taken out comes along.
iago:
Oh! There's also a thing in DF that isn't in SOTC -- now there's a fate point payout for conceding. So some of what we're talking about here is baked in, because that payout exists as an incentive for the player to say "Okay, I'm going to concede at this point and take my payout. Cool?"
breaker:
--- Quote from: iago on February 12, 2010, 09:51:36 PM ---Oh! There's also a thing in DF that isn't in SOTC -- now there's a fate point payout for conceding. So some of what we're talking about here is baked in, because that payout exists as an incentive for the player to say "Okay, I'm going to concede at this point and take my payout. Cool?"
--- End quote ---
And that's what I was looking for. Suggesting to the players that the payout is bigger if they concede by losing conciousness versus a smaller payout for simply surrendering, cool stuff you've got going there. Sadly, I've never paid SOTC, but I'm familiar with the rules.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version