ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Taran on July 03, 2011, 01:07:44 PM
-
So in a previous thread I mentionned that one of my PC's was Taken Out in social combat.
To start off, when the NPC won initiative I told the player that the NPC had lots of maneuvers/assessments to tag and offered the player a chance to concede before she attacked. The player chose to take the attack and was Taken Out.
The NPC did like 24 points of stress in a single attack (after tagging lots of maneuvers). I'd kind of imagined the PC taking an Extreme Consequence and changing an aspect to reflect that he'd fallen in Love with the NPC.
As the Player was determining what to do with his consequences, he said "I'm only going to take a moderate and be Taken Out".
Really?
I know the NPC gets to choose the Taken Out conditions, but if there's no long term mechanical effect (consequences), it can be, in some situations, less of a detriment. I just see situations where someone with a Recovery Power goes, "Woh! That was piles of damage and no matter what I do, I'm getting Taken Out. If I'm going to be captured then I don't want to have any long-term consequences. I'll just take a mild and be Taken Out". I know he loses out on FP's for having less consequences when Taken Out...but is this how it works?
In the end, in the scenario the player agreed to take the Extreme as it would make for a better story...
-
If the damage exceeds the character’s stress track,
or occupied boxes “push” the stress off the right
side of the stress track, the character is taken
out, meaning the character has decisively lost
the conflict. His fate is in the hands of the opponent,
who may decide how the character loses.
I'm not sure what your NPCs goal in the social conflict was, but whatever it was, you could really dictate that it happened. So, if your NPCs goal was to get his character to fall in love with yours, you could practically say that that happened, as long as it met the approval of the table.
Being Taken Out means the character loses. That means the NPC wins. So, whatever the NPCs goal was in the conflict, something along those lines happens. If a long-term temporary aspect is what you levy against him "IN LOVE WITH NPC" that's not a consequence or one of his seven aspects, you could theoretically do that.
My two cents, really.
-
As the Player was determining what to do with his consequences, he said "I'm only going to take a moderate and be Taken Out".
Really?
I know the NPC gets to choose the Taken Out conditions, but if there's no long term mechanical effect (consequences), it can be, in some situations, less of a detriment. I just see situations where someone with a Recovery Power goes, "Woh! That was piles of damage and no matter what I do, I'm getting Taken Out. If I'm going to be captured then I don't want to have any long-term consequences. I'll just take a mild and be Taken Out". I know he loses out on FP's for having less consequences when Taken Out...but is this how it works?
It's a potentially viable concession however, concessions cannot save a character from the consequences of a roll. See YS206 "...a character cannot be saved from a roll that takes him out by offering a concession. You have to offer the concession before the roll..." Additionally, concessions are negotiated - the whole group gets a chance to weigh in and say that sounds reasonable or it doesn't. So that part of what you did sounds correct.
My only question regarding the mechanics is on the aspects tagged. Maneuver created aspects don't last long, so he should have been there (with a chance to act) while any were put in place. The other method is using a bunch of fate points on longer term aspects. Did she really drop a bunch of fate points to make him fall in love? Sounds like an interesting lead in to a story...
-
Rules-wise, no help from me, but there are two things I would consider here:
1) You basically flat out told the player: "You gonna lose, bub, be smart..." And he opted not to be smart. He had his chance to influence the outcome in his favor, didn't take it, so he's basically screwed and forced to stick with whatever you dole out. (One of the replies backs this up rules-wise, as he was taken out and the NPC could do whatever she wanted with him. He's lucky she didn't have some "BURLY EX-PRISONERS WHO HAVEN'T HAD SOME FOR TOO LONG" nearby.)
2) Perhaps, as a moderate consequence, you could have given him "CAN'T STOP THINKING ABOUT THAT GIRL"? This would allow you to compel it quite often, like whenever he sees someone with the some build/hair colour, when he thinks he hears her name, or something like that.
Again, my two cents without any usable knowledge of the rules backing them up :)
-
Hmmm. The player was offering a concession after the roll? That's not allowed by the rules (specifically, it says you have to offer the concession before the dice hit the table), although many people play pretty fast and loose with that point.
Finally, a character cannot be saved from a
roll that takes him out by offering a concession.
You have to offer the concession before the roll
that takes out your character. Otherwise, it’s
cheating the opponent out of victory.
Either with a concession or being Taken Out, here are some suggestions for what to levy against them (emphasis mine):
* The character has at least one moderate
or worse consequence as a result of the
conflict.
* The outcome creates significant difficulty
for the character in the future. The character
might offer a concession to avoid
getting maimed, but maybe that means
an artifact he was protecting gets stolen,
or something along those lines.
* The outcome creates a situation that
restricts the character’s behavior in some
significant way, like owing a large debt
to someone. This may require adding an
additional, long-term, temporary aspect
to the character, separate from his consequence
track, so that the defeat can be
enforced via compels.
I would have personally gone with the third option and given him a long-term, temporary aspect of "IN LOVE WITH NPC" that would last at least until the end of this adventure and possibly until the end of the next one. Remember, he lost the ability to dictate the result of the combat when he lost. It is entirely in your hands (and what passes group consensus) at the point of him being Taken Out.
-
1)You might want to remind the player that for each concequence that they have when were taken out gives them a Fate point in the following scene.
2) With that much shift i would be laying down aspects that affect not only that one character but his team mates, after all you are who you hang out with.
-
As the Player was determining what to do with his consequences, he said "I'm only going to take a moderate and be Taken Out".
Remember that taking a consequence is the controlling player's choice.
Generally, the character taking more stress that the stress track allows would either take a consequence to remain in the conflict or not take a consequence and be Taken Out (i.e. getting Taken Out does not require you to take a consequence). Of course, the player could take a consequence (that is not "big enough" to keep him in the conflict) and then be Taken Out as well (the only positive thing in that case is that the player will receive one Fate Point per consequence).
-
I'm pretty sure that altering a character aspect is in line with the sort of thing a Taken Out result can so.
-
Just to clarify:
-I offered to let him conceed BEFORE I rolled for the NPC. My concession probably would have been a moderate or severe consequence and leaving the bar with the NPC.
-The NPC had made a few assessments about the PC/scene that she could tag using empathy and awareness. She'd also done some scene-long naval-gazing maneuvers.
-Was it the intention of the NPC to have the PC fall in love with her? Not quite, but she has an aspect that basically says boys fall all over her. As well, it made for a good story(long term) to have this particular PC fall for this particular NPC.
@UmbraLux the background is in this thread if you haven't read it and want to: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26973.0.html
- I'm mostly annoyed that someone can choose to not take any consequences when they see that they are completely defeated. I guess I just have to adjust my perception of how Taken Out works.
-
This is how I see the rules working (and if I'm wrong I'd love to be corrected).
GM: "That's 6 stress. Ouch. So how are going to deal with it?"
Player: "I'm going to be taken out."
GM: "But you still have your moderate and severe consequence and..."
Player: "Yeah, but I'm saving them for the big battle tonight. I should have my mild back for that battle and I want to be full for it. This NPC isn't going to kill me - the worse that happens is instead of intimidating her I'll run away like a scared little puppy. Maybe I'll even give her information - whatever. No, I'm going to need those consequences for the big battle and losing here doesn't really matter, so I'm losing."
And then the PC loses and the winning character dictates the takeout - all because the player didn't want to take consequences in this situation.
It's the same as if a PC with a stress track of 2 takes three stress after he's already used his mild, moderate, and severe consequences - it wouldn't be fair to insist that he take an extreme to cover that exchange, would it? Of course not. So if the player doesn't want to take consequences he doesn't have too... Of course the take might involve assigning him consequences, but once he's made that decision then what happens is out of his hands.
Richard
-
- I'm mostly annoyed that someone can choose to not take any consequences when they see that they are completely defeated. I guess I just have to adjust my perception of how Taken Out works.
It does seem a little odd, but here's the most important factor:
If I concede before getting attacked, (or after getting attacked, taking some consequences, and surviving), I get to dictate how I lose. The players and GM have to agree, but in general, I can 'lose' in the way that is least harmful to me.
On the other hand, if I refuse to take a consequence from a large attack and get taken out, I have given up any and all say in what happens to me. It becomes completely up to the opponent, and I should lose in the way that is MOST harmful to me or most in line with the opponent's goals.
-
I think mostly everything has been said. I would only add that if the player is really against an extreme consequence of being in love, then you should find something else. Consequences are not about punishing the player. They should make life more difficult, true, but even more importantly they should make the game more fun. It seems a bit unclear to me where the player stood in all this (beyond not wanting to get hurt much).
Now, like EdgeofDreams said, if someone gets taken out, then the attacker can decide the rough nature of what happens (within reason), but not the precise details. That may mean a significant consequences and may not. You might consider whether this NPC would have wanted to inflict a life-altering consequence on the PC, or whether they'd be happy with perhaps a moderate or severe one instead.
-
Cool. THanks to all who responded.
-
I can fully understand Tarans frustration, especially in a social combat. As I understand it, the thing is that the player chooses to get Taken Out, as that seems to be much less of a problem compared to taking a consequence (that will stick for quite a while, depending on the level of consequence).
I am not sure that the Taken Out result in a social combat has been explained fully. Compare it with a physical combat, where being Taken Out could mean death - that, in worst case, ought to be result here as well (well, not death, but a serious situation). So a veeery sticky aspect is very much a suitable result for a character that is loosing the social combat (especially to those shifts indicated!). As a GM, you could let the aspect stick for longer than a severe consequence, if you like... and compel the hell out of it! :)
-
First of all, a 24 shift attack from a pure mortal (or anything less than a faerie queen, really) is pure bullshit. Yes, I know you found cute ways to justify it, but you still pulled the equivalent of "you lose because I said so and I have all the power".
On the main issue, yes, the player decides if they take a consequence or not. The downside being that when you lose a conflict, you are at the whim of whoever beat you. This is one of the big strengths of the Fate system (the aspect thing overshadows this, which is a shame). Because the player can determine when they take consequences, and whether or not they concede or press the issue, they have the power to determine what is important to their character. They can say "I'd rather lose this fight here, and save my strength for something else" or "no, this matters, I'm pulling out all the stops, regardless of what it costs me in future effectiveness".
-
First of all, a 24 shift attack from a pure mortal (or anything less than a faerie queen, really) is pure bullshit. Yes, I know you found cute ways to justify it, but you still pulled the equivalent of "you lose because I said so and I have all the power".
Meh, if the players can do it (And yes, they can do it with ease) why can't the GM? As long as everyone's still having fun what does it matter?
-
A concession is "basically a special form of being taken out--you lose the conflict, but you get to decide your character's fate on your own terms instead of your opponent's. That way your character doesn't have to take any consequences your not willing to take...(YS206)." if they declined the concession they don't get to tell you how many or how severe the Consequences were. They can take a concession before being taken out, but why bother. Edit: for a Fate point, of course.
- I'm mostly annoyed that someone can choose to not take any consequences when they see that they are completely defeated. I guess I just have to adjust my perception of how Taken Out works.
Yes. Adjust it to, the player has no say in how they lose (well, there's a little caveat about the result still being in character.) just say "you lost. How about you're in love with as an Aspect?
I get e feeling that your problem was that your goal for the conflict was inflicting consequences, rather than something in the fiction.
-
Meh, if the players can do it (And yes, they can do it with ease) why can't the GM? As long as everyone's still having fun what does it matter?
The players and the GM have a different set of responsibilities, that is why. If the players manage to work up 24 shifts before a conflict, the GM has the opportunity (and responsibility) to provide opposition to their efforts every step of the way. The GM has no responsibility to provide opposition to NPC's, and cannot be credibly assumed to handle such responsibility. It would be a textbook case of a conflict of interest on the GM's part.
-
-The NPC had made a few assessments about the PC/scene that she could tag using empathy and awareness. She'd also done some scene-long naval-gazing maneuvers.
-Was it the intention of the NPC to have the PC fall in love with her? Not quite, but she has an aspect that basically says boys fall all over her. As well, it made for a good story(long term) to have this particular PC fall for this particular NPC.
@UmbraLux the background is in this thread if you haven't read it and want to: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26973.0.html
Sounds good, I was mostly commenting because any NPC going through that much work to have a PC trailing after like a puppy should (IMO) be central to the nascent story. As an entry into an involved political game, it sounds excellent. :)
- I'm mostly annoyed that someone can choose to not take any consequences when they see that they are completely defeated. I guess I just have to adjust my perception of how Taken Out works.
Only if they acknowledge that defeat before you roll. Once you've rolled, they're taking it. Though I do look for input from the players on what consequences fit.
First of all, a 24 shift attack from a pure mortal (or anything less than a faerie queen, really) is pure bullshit. Yes, I know you found cute ways to justify it, but you still pulled the equivalent of "you lose because I said so and I have all the power".
Why? It wasn't a magical attack.
As I noted earlier, my only questions were around how it was set up. But you and I weren't there. Moreover, it's a fairly good (if standard) entry into a story. And beautiful women in need of help is pretty much a Dresden trope. :)
-
The players and the GM have a different set of responsibilities, that is why. If the players manage to work up 24 shifts before a conflict, the GM has the opportunity (and responsibility) to provide opposition to their efforts every step of the way. The GM has no responsibility to provide opposition to NPC's, and cannot be credibly assumed to handle such responsibility. It would be a textbook case of a conflict of interest on the GM's part.
The GM's responsibility is to tell a story, and to try to ensure everyone at the table enjoys it. Since different people have a different view of what is fun there's no way to say that a GM should always provide this or that thing. If you'd read the context, and the situation clearly you'd see that both of these responsibilities seem to have been upheld.
Besides that as a GM I have been in so many situations that would have been a conflict of interest (as you describe above) if I was not aware that my only interest was the table's. Realizing that you're not opposed to the player, but working with them is what makes a great GM.
-
The GM's responsibility is to tell a story, and to try to ensure everyone at the table enjoys it. Since different people have a different view of what is fun there's no way to say that a GM should always provide this or that thing. If you'd read the context, and the situation clearly you'd see that both of these responsibilities seem to have been upheld.
Besides that as a GM I have been in so many situations that would have been a conflict of interest (as you describe above) if I was not aware that my only interest was the table's. Realizing that you're not opposed to the player, but working with them is what makes a great GM.
It's not the GM's responsibilty to tell a story. Maybe the game can be played that way, I don't know, but its not the automatic default. The context is that the GM and the player disagreed about what should happen, and about what would be more fun. This shows that there is some sort of breakdown going on somewhere in the game. This is not a sign that everything that happened was perfect for his groups social context.
You misunderstand what I mean by conflict of interest. It's in the GM's best interest to make the conflict with the NPC something that poses a genuine threat the the PC(s). This responsibility is spelled out in the rules. If the GM is also given the responsibility to manage credible opposition against the NPC, then he is forced to choose whether he will manage that opposition credibly, thereby undercutting its ability to oppose a PC, or whether he will advocate for the NPC being a threat, thereby undercutting the credibility of his opposition to the NPC. Characters cannot gain +24 shift attacks without having the opposition to those maneouvers and declarations being managed by the GM. Thus, if the GM pretends to treat the NPCs the same as the PC's, he has introduced a clear conflict of interest, in which he must abdicate one of the responsibilities he has taken upon himself. If he wants to create an unwinable fight (for the "story"), he can do so without such a conflict of interest by treating the situation as a pure compel, or even by just saying "your character falls in love, no recourse" if the group will put up with it. But the GM cannot credibly approach the situation in the way the OP described without messing something up.
-
@ Luminos: I do my best not to railroad the players. In fact the thread I pointed UmbraLux to is exactly about finding a balance between story and player choice. I guess when you put up one of these posts and ask people for their opinion, you're kind of putting yourself out there with the hopes that people will give you constructive criticism and not call your ideas bullshit. I'm surprised actually; I usually find your advice very helpful
But I guess I can explain the situation.
1. The game is submerged
2. The NPC is a Main plot character who is 10 refresh and socially spec'd;
3. The PC instigated contact with the NPC;
4. The PC's knew every scene aspect that was tagged/taggable and I never hid the fact that the NPC was making assessments and doing maneuvers and they had opportunities to oppose said maneuvers. In fact, I was quite clear what her intentions were before any social conflict started;
5. The NPC had aspects justifying her actions. She also had mental consequences compelling her actions;
6. Everyone around my table had fun and had a laugh over it
7. The player that was taken out was given a chance to concede and was fine with what I'd offered him when he'd been taken out
Anyways, this thread is about taking consequences and the little social scenario I used as an example is second to that. I can see that I had misinterpreted how things should get played out when someone is Taken Out.
-
Forgive me for coming across too harshly, if that was the case. I stand by my dislike of the scenario, but it is a great deal more reasonable with those extra details added in. Hopefully you will still find my future comments helpful.
-
I think I'm confused now. If I'm Taken Out, can't my opponent slap me with a consequence of their choosing as part of the "my ass is theirs" clause of Taken Out?
Being Taken Out should NEVER be a good thing, at least that's how I see it. Else the concession rules wouldn't need to be there.
-
I think I'm confused now. If I'm Taken Out, can't my opponent slap me with a consequence of their choosing as part of the "my ass is theirs" clause of Taken Out?
Being Taken Out should NEVER be a good thing, at least that's how I see it. Else the concession rules wouldn't need to be there.
I think you are looking at consequences through the wrong end of the scope. Consequences aren't how you get beat up. Consequences are how you justify how your character keeps going when they should have been stopped. They are used to not be taken out. Of course, there is nothing stopping you from placing an aspect on a taken out character if you feel like its necessary to give that result force.
Edit: Look at it this way: Consequences provide a choice between not losing a fight at a cost, or losing the fight. If you still inflict consequences when they lose the fight, then there is no reason to hold back on taking consequences.
-
especially given that consequences taken in order to mitigate an attack are chosen by the defender, while those inflicted as part of a taken-out result (if such a thing is allowed) are chosen by the attacker
(so long as, in both cases, they pass a 'reasonableness test' adjudicated by the table as a whole)
-
The NPC had made a few assessments about the PC/scene that she could tag using empathy and awareness. She'd also done some scene-long naval-gazing maneuvers.
An aspect from most maneuvers has to be used as soon as possible, or you lose the free tag. So you can't stack up multiple aspects from navel-gazing maneuvers. You can still stack free tags from declarations and assessments though.
First of all, a 24 shift attack from a pure mortal (or anything less than a faerie queen, really) is pure bullshit.
No, it isn't. It merely requires special circumstances. Ritual magic can easily pass the 20-shift mark. A sniper who spends several exchanges making assessments and declarations about vantage points, firing angles, cover and open ground, and then finally aims and fires with all those free tags can also get that headshot without any warning. A wizard attacking at weapon 10, control 10 is making essentially a 20-shift attack. A vampire that attacks under cover of darkness so you can barely see it (stealth+cloak of shadows declaration or maneuver), jumps from atop a car so it has higher ground (alertness/athletics declaration), has waited until you reach the part of the road the heavy rain has flooded (alertness declaration of "slippery terrain"), has assessed your combat style (aspect assessment on you using fists skill), has a base attack skill of +4 and uses his supernaturally strong and clawed hands attacks at +12 with weapon 6, effectively a 18-shifts attack.
And all of the above have happened in-game one time or another to me or by me.
-
The Breakdown:
She attacked with Rapport +4 which was modified by her presense (+5)
she had the Rapport stunt "Sex Appeal"+2
she assessed that PC was horny with awareness +2 (because of the maneuvers WCV's were placing on patrons - it was a strip club)
she assessed that the PC was "going on instinct" with Empathy (+2) She had the empathy stunt to assess this in one minute
She used a Rapport maneuver to be "Looking good" +2
She spent 2 fate points to invoke 2 Aspects +4 (because of personality/mental consequences which made her act a certain way)
She rolled +3
The PC defended with a -2 (and chose not to use anything to mitigate any of the damage)
22 Shifts of damage
Because she has her own Line of Perfumes, I gave her a one time free tag/scene when dealing with the Opposite Sex when wearing the perfume. I didn't tag it because I forgot and, really, it was unnecessary.
Except for spending fate points on Aspects everything was within the scope of the game. I think he would have been taken out even without spending fate points, but it's what she would have done and in the end it ate up some FP's from the Pool that the Big Bad coudn't use later on.
Also note that the other PC's were present, in different areas of the bar. One had a "nick of time" aspect and the other(socially spec'd PC) had "guide my hand". Neither of them came to help the PC even when they knew what was going on and, like I said, I made her intentions well known to the Players before any social combat started.
-
An aspect from most maneuvers has to be used as soon as possible, or you lose the free tag. So you can't stack up multiple aspects from navel-gazing maneuvers.
Temporary aspects from maneuvers can last up to the length of a conflict or scene. Check out YS115 for reference. That said, I do ask they a) make sense, b) aren't repetitive, and c) use different skills.
A creative character can easily set up two aspects per exchange (declaration plus maneuver) unless opposed. Most maneuvers are easy to remove...simply walking out of the bar would have changed the scene and removed several aspects in the scenario above.
-
Temporary aspects from maneuvers can last up to the length of a conflict or scene. Check out YS115 for reference. That said, I do ask they a) make sense, b) aren't repetitive, and c) use different skills.
I think he's talking about the free tags. Maneuvers can last the whole scene, but you're limited on how long they can be tagged. *shrug* We let most maneuvers get tagged within the duration of the scene...except for combat...no-one's ever let a maneuver go more than an exchange or 2 before tagging it.
-
The Breakdown:
She attacked with Rapport +4 which was modified by her presense (+5)
So her base attack was +5
she had the Rapport stunt "Sex Appeal"+2
she assessed that PC was horny with awareness +2 (because of the maneuvers WCV's were placing on patrons - it was a strip club)
she assessed that the PC was "going on instinct" with Empathy (+2) She had the empathy stunt to assess this in one minute
She used a Rapport maneuver to be "Looking good" +2
She spent 2 fate points to invoke 2 Aspects +4 (because of personality/mental consequences which made her act a certain way)
She rolled +3
The PC defended with a -2 (and chose not to use anything to mitigate any of the damage)
22 Shifts of damage
Because she has her own Line of Perfumes, I gave her a one time free tag/scene when dealing with the Opposite Sex when wearing the perfume. I didn't tag it because I forgot and, really, it was unnecessary.
Except for spending fate points on Aspects everything was within the scope of the game. I think he would have been taken out even without spending fate points, but it's what she would have done and in the end it ate up some FP's from the Pool that the Big Bad coudn't use later on.
Also note that the other PC's were present, in different areas of the bar. One had a "nick of time" aspect and the other(socially spec'd PC) had "guide my hand". Neither of them came to help the PC even when they knew what was going on and, like I said, I made her intentions well known to the Players before any social combat started.
My only gripe here is that I feel NPC fate points should be used basically to help influence the story. These fate points were meaning less, as even with out them, 18 shifts is enough to take out most players. Add 3 and you're at 21, combined with the -2 roll and you're actually looking at 23 stress. The +4 from TWO fate points is overkill and, oddly, I find that the heavy handed part.
-
I think he's talking about the free tags. Maneuvers can last the whole scene, but you're limited on how long they can be tagged. *shrug* We let most maneuvers get tagged within the duration of the scene...except for combat...no-one's ever let a maneuver go more than an exchange or 2 before tagging it.
Tags may last up to a scene (YS106) though I wouldn't normally leave them more than a couple exchanges either. If nothing else, it's too easy for them to be nullified.
-
My only gripe here is that I feel NPC fate points should be used basically to help influence the story. These fate points were meaning less, as even with out them, 18 shifts is enough to take out most players. Add 3 and you're at 21, combined with the -2 roll and you're actually looking at 23 stress. The +4 from TWO fate points is overkill and, oddly, I find that the heavy handed part.
That's what I said too, it probably was too much with tagging the aspects. I don't know; I just threw them down on the table before I rolled or even knew what the result was because I figured that's what the NPC would do.
BTW It wasn't really 23. You're adding the +5 twice.
-
I think he's talking about the free tags. Maneuvers can last the whole scene, but you're limited on how long they can be tagged. *shrug* We let most maneuvers get tagged within the duration of the scene...except for combat...no-one's ever let a maneuver go more than an exchange or 2 before tagging it.
In one of the games I'm running, I let an aspect created by a maneuver be taggable for as many exchanges as the maneuver had shifts. It allows for some stacking, but generally prevents overkill.