I'd say this is one of those things that's highly dependent on circumstances.  In one game I played a shapeshifter who explicitly wasn't affected by thresholds - and that was one of the clues that his shapeshifting was something a bit more esoteric than the default "slap some ectoplasm on and call it done".

In the particular example cited, given the mystical defenses around the Carpenter home, I'd tend to say the guardian angels swap the shapeshifter out for a real backpack and toss the shifter into the lake.  Or perhaps somewhere less pleasant.  (Assuming the shapeshifter is hostile and/or evil, of course.  If it's not, then I'd say it's probably just stuck as a backpack due to the threshold.)

And you're mistaken -- on both points. The thread is not asking how to figure out a reasonable result, it's asking, "What is a reasonable result?" He's already decided how he's going to figure it out -- by asking the lot of us.

So your advice is that he should take further questions about reasonable results to us?  If so, I disagree - reasonable results should be a matter for the table to decide.  We can offer suggestions, sure, but ultimately, GamingInSeattle is going to have to deal with his own gaming group, and come up with results that said group finds reasonable, not results that the forum finds reasonable.

My response would be that, because he's been Taken Out, it's my decision what the result is. I'd listen, and if it sounds better than what I had in mind, I might go with it, but given the rules, it's my decision, not a negotiation. If he had wanted to have more say, he should have taken the consequences and stayed in the fight.

I didn't phrase this as a "after I've decided I'll take the consequences".  Even you admitted the player should understand what the stakes are, i.e. what they're going to lose if they don't take those consequences - and then, if that's too much, they can suggest an alternative - which you can then take, or not take.  Sounds like negotiation to me.

Ultimately, whether to take consequences or fold is the player's choice.  If that is a sufficiently informed choice, then there's room for negotiation - the player can suggest alternatives, the table can revolt and say that being reduced to a pile of ash isn't reasonable, and so on and so forth.  If that's not an informed choice, (such as in Belial666's example), then the only reasonable choice for a player becomes "take the consequences, because otherwise something much worse could happen" (or, if I ran into Belial666's example, the reasonable choice becomes "leave the game").  The only case where there's no room for negotiation is when the character literally can't take the hit.  Thus, that's the only case where they completely lose control of their fate.

Concessions are for negotiating. If you're taken out, then the outcome is by definition no longer in your hands.

In any game -- even this one -- sometimes you just lose a fight and have to deal with the results.

And oddly, I agree with all three of these statements.


To Belial666: I had some witty responses written up, but Mr. Death beat me to the punch.  Please read his response and take it to heart.

Here's where the difference is important: Take-Out isn't a negotiation.

Which is exactly why I say this situation isn't a take-out.  I mean, this whole thread is asking "Hey, how do I figure out what's a reasonable result for this situation?"  Do you have some better answer than "negotiate, talk to your table, and work out something that's fair to the situation"?  And are you really saying that, as GM, your response to a player suggesting an alternative "take-out" would be "Nope, this isn't open to negotiation, either spend your consequences or XYZ, no other options"?

And the severity isn't only measured in consequences. It could mean they're sidelined for a couple scenes and bad things happen while they're at. It could be they're completely fine, but the artifact they were after is taken. It could mean some of their equipment is wrecked (I've taken out one of my wizard PC's enchanted items -- a powerful block -- on a take out in lieu of causing consequences).

Well obviously.  I mean, that's why I used a fluffy term like severity, rather than saying it should come in the form of consequences.  Or why my initial post included an example of a plausible non-consequence result.  Sounds like we're in total agreement on this.

"Enough to take him out" just means that it goes beyond the character's stress track. Whether or not you take a consequence is not a concession, it's the player deciding whether or not he wants to avoid being taken out.

Consequences are not mandatory to be taken. The game book explicitly says you can take a consequence to avoid being taken out, otherwise you are taken out.

You can only do a concession before the dice roll that would have taken you out. The way you're saying it, Taken Out would almost never happen.

And a take-out result almost never happens to a player character.  NPCs, with much more limited consequences available, are much more likely to be taken out.

The point is that, when the player is choosing to lose, there is always room for negotiation - you can't use that to take narrative control completely away from the player, because they do still have the option to say no.  If someone said "Nah, this conflict isn't worth spending consequences on," and the GM responded by laughing maniacally and telling them to roll a new character because now they're dead... No, that's not how the game works.

Take-outs are complete loss of narrative control.
Concessions are negotiation of bad things happening to your character in order to avoid further game-mechanical conflict.

Depends on situation.  If you're tracking a person across the forest floor, being able to better see (or smell) small changes in the environment might make sense for getting the bonus.  On the other hand, if you're tracking someone in an urban environment by looking through security camera recordings, beast senses won't do anything.

The Track By Scent trapping is, in general, more powerful; sure, it's not giving you a numerical bonus - but without it, you've got no chance at tracking someone across, say, an empty parking lot, or in some other environment where they won't leave visible clues to their passage.

Yes, you can save up skill points and spend several at once, doing things like going from, oh, athletics +2 and rapport +1 to athletics +3, rapport +2, and survival +1 (or whatever).  While I'd allow bringing a skill directly from +0 to +3, you'd need a good excuse; months of down time spent exercising for endurance or might, similar amount of time training for most skills, or you could always cheat and have a faerie drop knowledge into your brain or the like... but that last gives me plot hooks...

However, I find the requirement of maintaining skill stacks during play to be overly restrictive; my houserule is as follows:
* If your skill set follows the stacking rules, you may buy up any skill by one point.  (Still subject to normal skill cap, of course.)
* If your skill set does not follow the stacking rules, you must buy up skills in a way that reduces the deficit cost of the "holes" in your stack.

So, for an example, say your skill stack started at
4 4
3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1

That's a legal stack, so you can buy up whatever you like.  For example:
4 4 4
3
2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1

Now, this skill stack has holes - it's missing two skills at +3, for a total missing value of -6.  The next skill point, therefore, has to go towards moving a +2 skill to +3, since that will reduce the hole to being only worth five (a +2 skill and a +3 skill).
4 4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1 1 1 1

At this point, you've got a choice; you could buy a skill from +1 to +2, reducing the hole from -5 to -3, or you could buy a skill from +2 to +3, reducing the hole to -4.

And so on and so forth.

I'd say this would work exactly the same as any other transformation - lawbreaker if you do it to them, both metaphysical and warden-law-wise.

That said, there's a loophole: if you don't transform them, but instead give them the ability to transform themselves, then you're probably okay metaphysics-wise (but likely to still have warden related problems).  An example would be the wolf belts from fool moon - making such a belt isn't, itself, a law violation.  (Or at least, I wouldn't treat it as one; I'm sure other people will have different opinions.  And the wardens certainly wouldn't care about such subtleties.)

Compare, for reference, the Tattoos of St. Giles - that's just a power, with an associated aspect.

As for having the tattoos damaged, that sounds like a consequence; if it would take you just a quick touch-up job to fix, that's a minor; if it would take a couple game sessions worth of time to fix, that's a moderate, etc.