I'm honestly curious... because the DFRPG is a very deadly RPG. I know that characters can concede, but I am sure it still happens.
Never killed a PC. Don't ever intend to, except by prior agreement.
One of the things I really like about this game is that the lethality can be adjusted by the players and GM. If you rule that every physical take-out means death and refuse all (or almost all) concessions, then this game can be very lethal. Otherwise, it isn't.
The thing is, concessions can only be taken at the start of a conflict round. I've seen things go very badly very quickly for a PC, especially if all the bad guys (intelligently) begin to focus fire.
I thought you could concede any time before a dice roll, not just at the start of a round (YS 206)
Whether this is RAW or not, I am going to adapt this rule to my game.
Tis RAW, Sir Bear.
It's the negotiating with everyone at the table that makes it deadly. Everyone wants to see something go splat or at least keep you in the scene as a distraction.
I killed one, but I have a rule, only kill for story purposes and always allow for a choice (in this case, the woman he loved, or himself), not just due to bad rolls or tactics. The results were a quite emotional funeral scene for the character.
Remember, it's the player that declares the taken out result, not the character. So if your nasty killer NPC takes out a PC in a fight that doesn't necessarily mean that the PC is dead, even though the NPC wants the PC dead.
You mean for concessions, right? The player of the victim makes concessions. The player of the victim's opponent declares the Taken Out result. This means that yes, the GM would be within his rights within the rules (whether he's a dick according to his group is another matter and one that cannot be quantified) to have the murderous NPC put two in the PC's brain.I believe his point was that while the murderous NPC might want to kill the character, the GM could decide that it's inappropriate at this point.
Also, I find it hard to suspend disbeleif if an Main NPC wizard is flinging high velocity projectiles at PC's and doing piles of damage that you can just say, "oh, that final blow that did 12 damage knocks you out instead of spraying your brains all over the ground". If you're doing lethal damage, it's lethal and sometimes you can't control how deadly your attacks are. But maybe that's another topic of discussion. I suppose you can always justify anything...
Do I really need to bring back the 'Mack Truck' example?
Just because the attack (the game action) causes stress, in ANY amount, however high, does NOT necessarily mean that the attack (the multi-tonne kinetic missile barreling toward the target at highway speeds) actually HIT the victim.
My rule is this: if I think that the creature that my players are fighting would kill them, then it kills them.
DFrpg, and FATE upon which it is based, are narrative systems. The story takes precedence, informed by the dice, not dictated by them.
If you're playing a game where you know that your character will not be crippled or killed - then where's the stakes? I'm not saying it needs Call of Cthulhu levels of PC death, but if you know that your PC will never die then where's the drama?
When Harry Dresden goes into a fight you know that people can get hurt and maybe die. Over the series some reoccurring characters have been hurt, crippled, or killed. Sometimes the innocent victim can't be saved. Sometimes bystanders get hurt.And yet Harry hasn't died. There are more ways to lose than being killed; sometimes losing a character who's mportant to the PC can be just as bad, or worse. I'm not saying that works for all games, it depends on the predilections of the group; but for some groups, it's the best way to do things. If I've spent a lot of time working on a character, I'd have a lot more fun if he fails tragically than if he dies, in general.
And yet Harry hasn't died. There are more ways to lose than being killed; sometimes losing a character who's mportant to the PC can be just as bad, or worse. I'm not saying that works for all games, it depends on the predilections of the group; but for some groups, it's the best way to do things. If I've spent a lot of time working on a character, I'd have a lot more fun if he fails tragically than if he dies, in general.
When Harry Dresden goes into a fight you know that people can get hurt and maybe die. Over the series some reoccurring characters have been hurt, crippled, or killed. Sometimes the innocent victim can't be saved. Sometimes bystanders get hurt.
And yet I still consider him a Mary Sue, just one in a very abusive relationship with the author. :D
There are more ways to lose than being killed^This.
As for Dresden being a Marty Stu... He's definitely taken his licks, up to and including, y'know,He has been far from completely successful in a number of conflicts. What more defense is there?(click to show/hide)
To me a Mary Sue is the character who keeps getting all the power, or all the interesting bits in the story, they always save the day, never suffer a real defeat... the worst are the two-sword weilding magic totem cat sidekicked dark skinned only Good member of my Evil race types... but they aren't the only ones.
This reply is completely off topic both for the subject and the forum, but I felt compelled to write it:
Elric suffered real defeats.
Richard
Harry is the star in a story about a Wizard Detective. Let's leave it at that.
I don't think players should be automatically trusted with some choices. Not every GM is much of a story teller just like not every GM is a good actor or able to do voices or remember the rules, but they're the GM.
Plus, if the GM needs your permission to make you go splat whatever is going on behind those black, piggy eyes of theirs is much less scary.
But he was crippled - forced to take an extreme consequence involving his hand and a fear of fire magic.Think of those reoccuring characters as PCs, and it's dramatic, yes. I agree that risk of character death is a method you can use to create drama; I don't think anyone'd argue that it doesn't work. What I'm saying is that there are alternatives. If you instead imagine that Harry and Murph are the PCs and everyone else is an NPC, you can see the sort of thing I mean
And if you replace "PC" with "Reoccurring Character" then there have been deaths and cripplings. Murphy's partner - I thought he'd be wisecracking to the end of the series, but he went down in book two. Knights of the Cross have constantly put themselves in the line of fire and (as of Small Favors) two of the swords lack welders. Susan - who would have thought that the girlfriend who pushed her luck time after time would ever run out of luck and become RCI? Or Thomas, who's "All right, I'm captured" concession led to torture?
Think of those reoccurring characters as PCs and you'll see where the drama comes from.
Richard
Hell, being captured looks to me like a perfectly reasonable Taken Out result for Thomas in that scene; being left completely at the opponent's mercy is a little further than I'd usually be willing to go on a Concession...