Funny/Epic/Legendary moments

[Sanctaphrax]

It's not impossible to survive a fall off of a skyscraper. Or an atomic bomb. People have survived both in real life, without the use of Toughness Powers.

That aside, it's kinda funny to see Mr Death making arguments that I was planning to make. I'm used to fighting over this stuff with him.

That aside, I'm totally willing to take flimsy pretexts to avoid giving PCs Lawbreaker. 0 Refresh is probably worse than death for a PC.

EDIT: Here, have a relevant link.

Also, go read the semi-official advice thread that's stickied up on top of this forum. It addresses this specifically.

[UmbraLux]

The gray area I was referring to was, I pushed him off the building with magic, the fall is what killed him.

I'm not talking about lawbreaking or not - just discussing take out options and limitations.  Plenty of discussion on laws...I'm just not interested.

Wouldn't that be gravity winning the fight, and thus declaring the outcome?

FATE mechanics aren't really about simulating a fall (cough) or simulation much at all.  Boil them down to the bare bones and you're using the mechanics to manipulate the narrative in some way.  Create or find an aspect (assessments, declarations, and maneuvers), cause some stress (attacks), block some action (blocks & veils)...they're not really simulating anything.  They simply give you a defined window to narrate an action and result.  Long story short, you can't really throw someone to certain death except as a takeout.  Until then you haven't earned the narrative authority to kill.

It might be worth pulling up one of TheMouse's versions of tri-fold FATE.  They're about as close to bare bones as you can get.  Shouldn't need to be mentioned but those aren't DFRPG, they're simply FATE with few frills or add-ons.

While keeping things reasonable is important so is not being a d***.  Give players warnings (this may kill) and options (I'm compelling, spend a fate and he grabs hold of something long enough to survive)...don't spring "your character is now a murderer" on them.  That should never be a surprise to the player.  (Though it may be to the character.)

[HeadWound]

I'm not talking about lawbreaking or not - just discussing take out options and limitations.  Plenty of discussion on laws...I'm just not interested.
FATE mechanics aren't really about simulating a fall (cough) or simulation much at all. 

I should have inserted a smiley face, my gravity comment was just a joke. I am enjoying the discussion as it helps me understand the rules better, so I hope I don't come across as argumentative.

[UmbraLux]

It's all good.    I figured you might not be serious...but that argument has been made in other threads.   

Even my 'cough' when talking about falling was at least a bit tongue in cheek.    DFRPG's falling rules gather some of the more derisive comments here. 

[Lavecki121]

Tis true. However I was just trying to point out a few different ways that a person could be taken out with the same attack. While the character could easily kill the opponent, he could just as easily not.

[Addicted2aa]

@ mr. Death Just reread compels. Pretty sure I'm not abusing them. I add complication to players life, provided they don't pay off with a FP. If that compel is a limitation of choice, they are being pushed to a certain course of action. I was imprecise to indicate I controlled the action, the player still gets to decided how that action is played out, but the compel still pushes towards a course of action.

Fate also is a simulation, or at least DFRPG  is. It's not a simulation of reality, it's a simulation of the Dresden files novels. Which are in turn a *somewhat* realistic fantasy novel.



The reason I'm not going to put a compel after an action is because I'm not introducing the complication. The player is. They put forth a course of action "I'm going to try and shoot the bad guy" I confirmed "With your fifty caliber machine gun, that fires a minimum 3 bullets at a time and uses armor piercing explosive rounds?" They confirmed "Yup". They succeeded on their intended action, shooting the guy, and then decided that they don't want him to die. At that point, I'm still willing to listen to how their explanation of how that doesn't kill him, but I'm skeptical.

The point is they succeed on the action they attempted, which was a potentially lethal action. They tried to shoot him, and succeeded. That should mean they shot him. If you read the metaphor differently, fine, it's your table and all that, but that I find that strains verisimilitude, as well as straining the feel of restricted power, which is a recurring element in the series. Yes, I could compel when they come into a situation like that, (provided they have an aspect like that, which they might not) but unless it's ruminatively appropriate for which I can come up with examples, I'm not going to put forth the compel, forcing them to make a player choice. They can always say it's a self compel if it complicates their life though, and if it really does, great.

[Addicted2aa]

I forgot to address the point that this possibly gives creative players the edge. First off, Fate in general gives creative players and edge that games like gurps and certain incarnations of D&D don't. Second, if a player has trouble coming up with a reason and it's a serious problem that he kills the person, there are alot of options. Get the table involved to come up with an explanation, let it go with a flimsy explanation, retcon and reskin the attack, whatever. The point is that shouldn't have to happen. He should be aware of the potential consequence before the attack resolves. If it's a huge narrative deal, like this is the guy with the information they need, then I should have compelled him before he attacked to just kill the dude. You should be in a situation where it's a big deal that NPC X is likely dieing from an attack. It shouldn't blindside him. It shouldn't f him over. Because that's not fun, and if it's not fun, why are you doing it?

[Haru]

The reason I'm not going to put a compel after an action is because I'm not introducing the complication. The player is. They put forth a course of action "I'm going to try and shoot the bad guy" I confirmed "With your fifty caliber machine gun, that fires a minimum 3 bullets at a time and uses armor piercing explosive rounds?" They confirmed "Yup". They succeeded on their intended action, shooting the guy, and then decided that they don't want him to die. At that point, I'm still willing to listen to how their explanation of how that doesn't kill him, but I'm skeptical.

I think what Mr. Death (and me too, to an extend) are trying to say is, that in the moment where you ask

"With your fifty caliber machine gun, that fires a minimum 3 bullets at a time and uses armor piercing explosive rounds?"

you would also offer a fate point, if the character has an aspect that makes him prone to overkill. That way, he knows what's at stake at this moment, and you can justify having someone come after him for that kill. On the other hand, if he has aspects suggesting the opposite, you'd compel him out of using that thing. I have often enough said stupid things as a player, that would have made absolutely no sense for my character in that moment, and we usually resolved it with a short discussion about that. Sometimes you just don't think about every single consequence, it just doesn't come to mind. Reminding the player in an obvious way is a good way to make him think about the scene and maybe change his action. For example, he could do an attack with the above mentioned gun and describe it as "I shoot a few feet behind the guy, keeping up with him and forcing him into a corner." That would still be an attack with the gun, and on a taken out, he would have him cornered.

And you partially agree with it already, the only difference is, that you let the player paint himself into a corner first and then let him try to find a way out of it. If that is the way your group likes to play, far be it from me to say that is a bad thing. But I thought you still didn't see what we mean, so I thought I'd give it another try in explaining our point of view.

[Lavecki121]

I think that we are getting away from the original thread, which was awesome things that happened in your games. Its cool to argue theory but in the end its your game and you're gonna do what you want.

Does anyone have Funny/Epic/Legendary stuff that happened in their game that they would like to share, because I really want to hear it.

[Addicted2aa]

I think what Mr. Death (and me too, to an extend) are trying to say is, that in the moment where you askyou would also offer a fate point, if the character has an aspect that makes him prone to overkill.
And you partially agree with it already, the only difference is, that you let the player paint himself into a corner first and then let him try to find a way out of it. If that is the way your group likes to play, far be it from me to say that is a bad thing. But I thought you still didn't see what we mean, so I thought I'd give it another try in explaining our point of view.

A) what if he has no aspect related?
B) What if him killing this guy isn't really going to create any other consequence? Basically what if it's not interesting?

I get Mr Death and your approach. I don't think it fits the feel of the fiction. That's all.

[Baron Hazard]

Thank you Lavecki, I was gonna say something, but in general the community is cool and i didnt wanna come off as a passive aggressive A-hole or bitchy... But I do kinda feel this whole thing was kinda rude. lol. No worries though, and again, I am also interested in any awesome moments in all your games. ^^

[Lavecki121]

I have found that this seems to happen frequently. Its like "hey this cool story" then theology breaks loose

[Addicted2aa]

I have found that this seems to happen frequently. Its like "hey this cool story" then theology breaks loose

RPG wanks are just more fun than RPG stories. 

[Mr. Death]

A) what if he has no aspect related?

Weapons have aspects, scenes have aspects. Make a declaration and compel it.

B) What if him killing this guy isn't really going to create any other consequence? Basically what if it's not interesting?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if it's not interesting either way, then who gives a shit?

I get Mr Death and your approach. I don't think it fits the feel of the fiction. That's all.

Once again, I think I have to point out that you're getting the narrative and the mechanics mixed up. The Fate system is set up in this game explicitly to let you replicate the feel of the fiction. Any time you see Harry narrate something to the tune of, "I could _____, but ______," that's him getting a compel. That is Jim Butcher choosing to put Harry through that complication instead of "buying out." The player, like the author, always has that choice.

A character being forced into action should always have the player compensated via a fate point, with the option to buy out with a fate point. That's the core of this game system.

If the players want to do one thing and the dice are on their side, but logical circumstances mean it doesn't work out, that is a compel. Any time the players' choices are limited by anything but a failed dice roll, that should be a compel.

If the dice say they succeed, and you take away their choice in how that success plays out without them getting a fate point, that's cheating your players.

When a player rolls Guns to attack, they're not by default saying, "I shoot him. The roll determines how hard." What he's saying is, "I'm using Guns in such a way as to stop my opponent. The roll determines how effective this tactic is." The rolls are an abstract for how the tide of the conflict is going, not a direct simulation of how much damage someone takes.

And yes, sorry Baron. This does seem to happen in every thread.

[Addicted2aa]

Weapons have aspects, scenes have aspects. Make a declaration and compel it.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if it's not interesting either way, then who gives a shit?

a)I suppose, but that seems...cheap and forced. I don't see why it's a big deal to let the narrative play out.
b)The player? If they want to keep someone alive in that situation.

Any time you see Harry narrate something to the tune of, "I could _____, but ______," that's him getting a compel.

When a player rolls Guns to attack, they're not by default saying, "I shoot him. The roll determines how hard." What he's saying is, "I'm using Guns in such a way as to stop my opponent. The roll determines how effective this tactic is." The rolls are an abstract for how the tide of the conflict is going, not a direct simulation of how much damage someone takes.

I would read that as a player driven compel. Meaning they have asked for it. Which I already said I'm cool with.

You keep not addressing the point the player has already decided the action. This is not, I roll guns at him. It's I choose to summon up a gout of fire underneath his feet. The point is he's established a narrative action, succeeded at it, and no longer wants to follow the logical result. That's all I'm talking about. That specific situation. In that situation I don't feel I'm complicating there life, if they want the NPC alive.