The Dresden Files > DFRPG
Funny/Epic/Legendary moments
Lavecki121:
I think I have to agree a little with Mr. Death, Addicted, Technically a character at the lowest cost, should be able to take at least 20 stress, divided between whatever, and that doesnt include stress tracks. So 15 shifts could take them out but the npc would either have to concede or decide to be taken out. When it happens to PC's they dont die, they "go unconsious" or some effect and are unable to partake in the scene. I could take a 50 stress attack and I would still be considered taken out, not dead.
Addicted2aa:
--- Quote from: Mr. Death on November 06, 2012, 06:47:32 PM ---No, it does not. It means 15 shifts of physical stress that may or may not translate into any physical damage at all. How that stress manifests is entirely up to the players and the GM. There is nothing that says it has to mean that the weapon actually makes any contact whatsoever with the target.
--- End quote ---
You're probably right, it doesn't say that explicitly. Reading the metaphor like that seems like a ridiculous stretch though.
--- Quote from: Mr. Death on November 06, 2012, 06:47:32 PM ---Otherwise, the player always chooses how a Taken Out is narrated. The game is very clear on this.
--- End quote ---
It also makes it clear it's within reason.
--- Quote from: Mr. Death on November 06, 2012, 06:47:32 PM ---You have to remember that "Taken Out" just means "No longer participating in this conflict." It doesn't have to mean the person is physically rendered incapable of acting, only that the person will no longer be physically acting.
--- End quote ---
Taken out doesn't mean that. But throwing a fireball or unloading a clip at someone does.
--- Quote from: Mr. Death on November 06, 2012, 06:47:32 PM ---Not mutually exclusive. If you want to enforce an unintended consequence, that's probably a compel. Remember, Dresden is about dealing with consequences, but it's also about making choices that lead to those consequences.
--- End quote ---
Exactly. I want them to make the choice, knowing full well that that could cause a death. If I'm using a compel, I'm doing it before they even roll, I'm pushing them towards one particular type of action, as opposed to letting them try an action, then pushing them towards one type of consequence. The difference in our approaches is how much care needs to be taken when making the initial choice. I want consideration taken as the player considers their action. You appear to want the consideration, afterward.
--- Quote from: Mr. Death on November 06, 2012, 06:47:32 PM ---Or put another way, it's about the characters getting bitten in the ass by the unintended consequences, not the players. The fate system exists so that the players always have the choice.
--- End quote ---
Maybe. I see the point of mechanics as providing the experience for the player, not the character. If I want to tell a story that feels like Dresden, but not create that feeling for the people who are helping me tell the story, I won't use a rules system. I'll just start talking about what would be cool story. It's like in Dread, the jenga tower exists to make the players feel the tension, not to make the characters feel the tension. I want my players to feel the consequences of choice, not just their characters.
Haru:
--- Quote from: Addicted2aa on November 06, 2012, 08:09:20 PM ---Taken out doesn't mean that. But throwing a fireball or unloading a clip at someone does.
--- End quote ---
Not exactly. I kind of have to agree with both of you. If a player makes it a habit for his wizard to throw high power fireballs at people, then yes, at some point I would enforce the lawbreaker. However, if it happened the first time, I would let him get away with it, but with a warning that keeping this up, he will most certainly kill somebody in the process. I would ask again before he rolls another of those fireballs. If he still wants to do it, he has made his choice.
Addicted2aa:
--- Quote from: Taran on November 06, 2012, 06:41:33 PM ---I think, though, there's a difference between hitting someone with a weapon 3 with 5 shifts of success (for 8stress), and hitting someone with a weapon 7 for one shift of success (8stress).
--- End quote ---
I could see that as valid argument during the narration of the take out.
--- Quote from: Lavecki121 on November 06, 2012, 07:39:51 PM ---I think I have to agree a little with Mr. Death, Addicted, Technically a character at the lowest cost, should be able to take at least 20 stress, divided between whatever, and that doesnt include stress tracks. So 15 shifts could take them out but the npc would either have to concede or decide to be taken out. When it happens to PC's they dont die, they "go unconsious" or some effect and are unable to partake in the scene. I could take a 50 stress attack and I would still be considered taken out, not dead.
--- End quote ---
Mooks don't take consequences so they have at minimum 2 stress they could eat before being taken out.
But I think you're missing a part. The NPC is assumed to be taken out by the hit in the scenario. The hit happened to be 15 stress. The discussion is what does 15 stress represent. It assumed to be unmitigated, so take into account that a car is weapon 5. You've been hit with the narrative equivalent of 3 cars. So while in a normal situation you might be able to cut that down, by saying, I take a couple consequences and the rest goes to stress, indicating you were able to avoid the full power of it somehow, that is no longer the case here. You've taken the full blow, and we should already know what the full blow is at this point, the only thing left to decide is what that blow does to you.
Unless you read the metaphor differently.
--- Quote from: Haru on November 06, 2012, 08:19:31 PM ---Not exactly. I kind of have to agree with both of you. If a player makes it a habit for his wizard to throw high power fireballs at people, then yes, at some point I would enforce the lawbreaker. However, if it happened the first time, I would let him get away with it, but with a warning that keeping this up, he will most certainly kill somebody in the process. I would ask again before he rolls another of those fireballs. If he still wants to do it, he has made his choice.
--- End quote ---
I handle this by just reminding them up front, hey, what your doing is pretty powerful, you sure you want to do this? They say yes, boom, gloves are off.
Lavecki121:
--- Quote from: Addicted2aa on November 06, 2012, 08:33:11 PM ---But I think you're missing a part. The NPC is assumed to be taken out by the hit in the scenario. The hit happened to be 15 stress. The discussion is what does 15 stress represent. It assumed to be unmitigated, so take into account that a car is weapon 5. You've been hit with the narrative equivalent of 3 cars. So while in a normal situation you might be able to cut that down, by saying, I take a couple consequences and the rest goes to stress, indicating you were able to avoid the full power of it somehow, that is no longer the case here. You've taken the full blow, and we should already know what the full blow is at this point, the only thing left to decide is what that blow does to you.
--- End quote ---
I do understand that, and I like how you run your game and you make the choice very clear. However I feel that if I, a PC, am able to take a 30 shift hit and decide that I have been taken out and still be alive instead of taking all of my consequences (and sometimes no consequences), then NPC's should be able to as well.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version