The Dresden Files > DFRPG

Funny/Epic/Legendary moments

<< < (4/24) > >>

Mr. Death:

--- 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 ---
Nope. A successful attack of any kind doesn't have to mean that the attack actually landed in a narrative sense. Just like a consequence from a Guns attack could be hurting yourself in dodging, there is no reason that a Taken Out result from a gunshot has to mean the bullets actually hit anyone. Just like a failed Athletics roll to jump a gap doesn't have to mean you tried, failed, and are plummeting to your death.

All it means is that the player attacking with guns made it so that their target is taken out of the conflict.


--- 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.
--- End quote ---
That's one way of doing it. The way I've tended to do it, particularly with wizards, is compel them at the start to say, "Here's a fate point. If you take one of these goons out with anything heavier than a Weapon:3 spell, it will be a kill." That retains the choice, encourages them to hold back, and keeps the consequences of going overboard.

Bottom line, for me? Any time a narrative choice is taken out of the player's control--except in the result of a failed roll--they deserve a fate point for it. Once again, a player should never be forced to take a negative, unintended outcome because they rolled too well. That, quite simply, isn't fair.


--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
You misunderstand. As I said above, I compel before--I let the player know beforehand that they're up against mortal goons, and they will kill if they throw too much power into taking one of them out.

What I'm saying is, if the player isn't getting a fate point for it, they should not be forced into a negative outcome by a successful dice roll. A player rolling really well should mean things happen the player wants them to.


--- Quote ---Maybe. I see the point of mechanics as providing the experience for the player, not the character.
--- End quote ---
This is true, but I don't see how that should mean taking the choice out of the player's hands.


--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
And they can. But they still deserve the choice to accept and deal with those consequences--that's what the fate point system is all about. Most compels, at heart, boil down to the question of, "Will you accept this Fate Point in exchange for dealing with this consequence of this aspect?"


--- 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.

Unless you read the metaphor differently.
--- End quote ---
You're looking at it the wrong way. Once it's decided that it's a Taken Out, all 15-stress represents is, "They are taken out of this conflict in whatever manner the attacker decides." So does 5 stress. Or 3. Stress isn't hitpoints, where the number represents how much physical damage you can endure. It's an abstract meant to represent how much effort it takes to remove you from conflict.

A mechanical hit doesn't have to represent a narrative hit. Think of it like...GI Joe. The 80s cartoon. The Joes never hit anyone in Cobra ever, but still won the "battles." Put into game terms, the fights ended in a Taken Out result, where the Joes' players decided, "And Cobra Commander is forced to retreat."


--- 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.
--- End quote ---
I'm just saying that should be a compel--if they're getting a bad outcome from a good dice roll, that's a compel.

Addicted2aa:

--- Quote from: Mr. Death on November 06, 2012, 08:57:23 PM ---Bottom line, for me? Any time a narrative choice is taken out of the player's control--except in the result of a failed roll--they deserve a fate point for it. Once again, a player should never be forced to take a negative, unintended outcome because they rolled too well. That, quite simply, isn't fair.

--- End quote ---

Meh, They knew what was on the line and went for it. It was their choice. If they didn't intend that outcome, they shouldn't have made that choice.
I'll address the rest later.

Mr. Death:

--- Quote from: Addicted2aa on November 06, 2012, 09:04:04 PM ---Meh, They knew what was on the line and went for it. It was their choice. If they didn't intend that outcome, they shouldn't have made that choice.
--- End quote ---
That is something that should go for the characters. The players should always have a choice, unless they've accepted a fate point for the compel.

The book says explicitly that players always get to decide the outcome of a Taken Out. Nowhere does it ever say, "Unless they roll really, really well, then they're forced to accept an outcome they clearly do not want or intend."

Addicted2aa:

--- Quote from: Mr. Death on November 06, 2012, 09:11:55 PM ---That is something that should go for the characters. The players should always have a choice, unless they've accepted a fate point for the compel.

The book says explicitly that players always get to decide the outcome of a Taken Out. Nowhere does it ever say, "Unless they roll really, really well, then they're forced to accept an outcome they clearly do not want or intend."

--- End quote ---

They aren't forced to. They are forced to make their actions make sense. Also I'm not compelling them to do it, because I'm not always trying to force them into that situation.
that said, I'm fine with them calling it a self compel after.

Lavecki121:
I now feel that you are both right. If a wizard conjures up a 9000shift attack (im exaderating for effect) then its gonna kill someone. They could easily do a maneuver and if they end up having to take fallout then that is GM controled to hurting people (not necessarially killing them). However if a guy has a fists attack and has taken that skill that lets you roll 6 die instead of 4. Now lets say he has a 5 in fists. also he has taken Supernatural Strength so his fists are now pretty hard hitting weapons. He rolls and miraculously gets all + so thats 11. The guy defending rolls and gets only -  and his athletics was a 3 so thats a 0. Thats 11 shifts in a single punch. Now the guy swinging the punch was just trying to hit him. Doesn't mean that because he succeded by so much that he caved in his skull (though if thats what he was going for it could)

A wizard who conjures up 5 shifts of power (lets say fire) to hit someone and rolls an 8 to control it shouldnt have to immediatly kill them, it could easily blow them through a wall and now they are singed and unconsious. That person may have to take stress and consequences but they arent necessarially dead. Just like getting hit by 3 cars wouldnt kill you but you would be in pretty bad shape.

I feel that the higher roll could mean more damage but it could also mean that you had more control over what you were doing. I feel that a lower roll has a higher chance of causing you to unintentionally kill someone than a high roll, because you did not use the weapon right and clearly dont know what you are doing.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page