ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: KnightKD on December 31, 2011, 03:47:25 AM
-
Another situation ripped from the last session:
The characters are in an infiltration/Stealth sort of mission, under a nice veil and sneaking up on the bad guys. They've got inhuman strength and magic weapons. The bad guys are tough supernatural types, but nothing uber special. Stealth rolls are successfully made, baddy alertness rolls are failed....
It was still practically impossible to take them out in one shot. Between stress tracks and all the consequences available, it just wasn't likely, even with a couple maneuvers to put "Blind to the danger" and "Easy target" on them.
In the end, because it felt right and I didn't like the idea of wasting such a sweet assassination scene, I let the characters take them down with one solid hit, No alarm raised, etc. etc.
I suppose you could just call it a concession, but what enemy in his right mind would concede to being assassinated, and why would the characters want anything less? Trust me, in this particular scenario they wouldn't.
How would others have handled it?
-
How would others have handled it?
Whether it's a one shot or not is the difference between a well prepared ambush and a slapped together mess. With time, PCs will be able to set up at least one aspect per exchange of preparation. Two* if they're creative & lucky. At that rate, even one exchange of setup by four PCs nets you four to eight aspects - +8 to +16 on the ambush. It's a +24 to +48 after just three exchanges of prep.
It's really not hard to set up a ambush that will take the target out in one attack. It just takes a small amount of time.
*One maneuver per exchange gets one aspect per person, add a declaration for the second.
-
It depends on exactly how tough these "tough supernatural types are."
First, let's establish a baseline target with 0 endurance and no special powers or stunts. To take them out it one blow, you must deal at least 15 stress (Mild + Moderate + Severe + length 2 stress track + 1) or 23 if Extreme consequences are taken into account (in my games, nameless mooks NEVER take Extremes, and often don't even take Severes before they go down, depending on the difficulty I designed the encounter to be).
So, if that bad guy is defending from zero due to ambush, and the player is attack with a +5 skill, two maneuvers to tag, and a Weapon rating of 5 (from strength + a big sword or whatever), that's 14 stress on an average roll. Add one more tag, fate point, or bit of luck on the dice, and you've got an instantaneous kill.
Now, most worthy opponents will have Endurance scores and often Toughness powers. This can increase the stress needed for a one-shot kill by anywhere from 1 to 13 (e.g. Endurance 5 adds a Mild and 2 Stress, plus Mythic Toughness gives armor 3 and 6 extra Stress boxes).
What do these numbers all mean? To me, they mean that an assassin who takes time to catch his opponent unaware and set up maneuvers CAN do a one-shot assassination reasonably well (it's even easier if they take a stunt that increases their damage output against ambushed targets). Against something with Inhuman or better Toughness powers, though, you probably will need either the Catch or a large stack of fate points to make it happen.
Is it "too hard" to do a one-shot assassination in this game? Maybe, maybe not. I feel like the difficulty of it is just about right for a game that's more about narrative and overcoming obstacles than it is about gleeful murder. And remember that even a target who survives such an attack will now have three or more consequences ripe to be tagged, invoked for effect, or compeled against them, making them very very unlikely to survive the next attack.
The easiest way to adjust this, if it bothers you, is to remember that nameless mooks often don't use all their consequence slots. That's not because they don't care about living - it's because narratively, they're just not that big a deal in the overall story. Named villains, on the other hand, shouldn't be taken down in one shot. In my mind, dealing multiple consequences in one attack is plenty of reward for a PC who manages to sneak up on the big bad guy.
-
It's actually really easy to assassinate people in this game as long you don't target people important to the plot.
You don't get to choose whether you take a consequence when you get hit: the person playing you does. And he may not have your best interests at heart. If you aren't a PC or a major villain, he'll probably just shrug and not even take a mild.
-
Also, you can decide to concede prior to actually taking the damage. If you think the setup is sufficient, just concede and move on. Which sounds very similar to what you actually did. ;)
-
You can easily do a surprise takeout of a mook. They don't take consequences - so any attack that exceeds the mook's Endurance stress track is a takeout.
Taking out a full consequence track NPC is another thing. The average PC can take 23 levels of stress +/- their defense roll before being taken out.
23+ stress levels in one shot. That's doable, but that's also the minimum. High Endurance, any toughness powers, an endurance based stunt, armour - add in any of that and the number goes up. On the plus side an ambush gives you a lot of time to do navel gazing maneuvers.
But if the guy just has two dots on his endurance track - use a 2 rating weapon with a good skill for your weapon and with a decent roll you've got him. If the roll isn't that good, then add in a few navel gazing maneuvers and he's gone.
Richard
-
Another situation ripped from the last session:
The characters are in an infiltration/Stealth sort of mission, under a nice veil and sneaking up on the bad guys. They've got inhuman strength and magic weapons. The bad guys are tough supernatural types, but nothing uber special. Stealth rolls are successfully made, baddy alertness rolls are failed....
It was still practically impossible to take them out in one shot. Between stress tracks and all the consequences available, it just wasn't likely, even with a couple maneuvers to put "Blind to the danger" and "Easy target" on them.
In the end, because it felt right and I didn't like the idea of wasting such a sweet assassination scene, I let the characters take them down with one solid hit, No alarm raised, etc. etc.
I suppose you could just call it a concession, but what enemy in his right mind would concede to being assassinated, and why would the characters want anything less? Trust me, in this particular scenario they wouldn't.
How would others have handled it?
That's exactly how I would have handled it. I mean, the whole point of that scene was to show how bad-ass the PCs are, right? So with that nice stealth roll, I'd call that a manoeuvre, and invoke for effect. What's the effect? BAD ASS PLAYERS, of course!
As others have said, unless they are plot-important, don't assign consequences. If you really want to "do it by the numbers," then that's 3 stress (2 for the base stress boxes +1 to take out) plus any for Toughness and Endurance skill.
However, what you did was completely by the book, too. Invoke for effect! If it'd draw things out unnecessarily, don't do it! Just use the beautiful, beautiful aspects!
-EF
-
What everyone above me said.
I particularly agree with the importance placed on how important the targets are to the plot vis-a-vis the rules on NPCs and conseqeunces. If there are a couple of bored mooks on patrol around the main villain's estate, then a well-executed ambush (including some maneuvered aspects) combined with the fact that nameless NPCs don't accept consequences ought to be all that's needed to guarantee one-shot kills. On the other hand, the main villain should be more resistant to being ganked, otherwise taking him down might end up being less than fully satisfying.
-
Let's not forget that special kind of concession where the PCs DO gank a plot-important character, where the concession is they're "left for dead" or "fall into the river".
-
Let's not forget that special kind of concession where the PCs DO gank a plot-important character, where the concession is they're "left for dead" or "fall into the river".
As in "He's dead. No one could survive that... right?"
I like it.
-
I wonder if the characters can be Compelled to accept or deny a concession.
If the PCs do gank an important character and the concession is something like "nobody could have survived that", what if a character has "No loose ends" or similar as an Aspect?
-
I wonder if the characters can be Compelled to accept or deny a concession.
If the PCs do gank an important character and the concession is something like "nobody could have survived that", what if a character has "No loose ends" or similar as an Aspect?
I've definitely seen characters compelled to give up a fight they clearly can't win and compelled to keep fighting in the face of impossible odds. It all depends on what best suits the current story and the characters aspects.
Also, remember that when you concede or are taken out, you get a fate point for every consequence taken during the conflict. This means that conceding after a long painful fight is effectively a two or three fate point self-compel. If the GM is compelling you to concede, that's just yet another fate point to add to your pile.
-
I've definitely seen characters compelled to give up a fight they clearly can't win and compelled to keep fighting in the face of impossible odds. It all depends on what best suits the current story and the characters aspects.
I am not quite sure how your answer relates to my post. The scenario I am describing is when the villain is conceding but the PCs are being compelled not to accept the concession.
-
I'd see an aspect like that being brought up as part of the negotiation of the concession, more often than being invoked or compelled, as part of the determination of whether the concession is 'reasonable'. It could then either be invoked for the character to notice something 'off' about the 'death', or compelled to induce the character to miss out on other important activities to 'make sure'.
-
The last paragraph on page 328 covers this. Supporting NPCs only take up to Moderate Consequences before you Concede the fight.
You Concede, not the NPCs. So your Concession can perfectly well be, "Yeah, the dude dies. Splat." Because the character is an imaginary person you use as one of many avatars with which to interact with the game world, and the fact that he doesn't want to die doesn't even enter into it.
So do 7+(stress track + armour + extra available Consequence value) stress in one hit, and they go down. By the rules, with no fumbling around. With surprise, some Maneuvers, supernatural strength, and a good weapon, you should be able to manage this within the bounds of the combat system as written.
-
The GM can Concede on behalf of a Villain, where Conceding means negotiating a narrative outcome which is better for the Villain than a Taken-Out. A Player can Concede on behalf of a Character, where Conceding means negotiating a narrative outcome which is better for the Character than a Taken-Out. Nothing can Compel a Concession of this type - these are, by their very nature, negotiations between player and GM.
However, if we are talking about "concession" in the simple plot sense of having the character/villain give up a conflict - no player-GM negotiating, no metagame Concession, no Fate Points awarded for each Consequence taken in a conflict - then I suppose that sort of concession can be a possible OUTCOME of an Invoke/Compel. However, the fact remains that, per the rules, Compels should limit a character's choices, not dictate a single choice.
-
I am not quite sure how your answer relates to my post. The scenario I am describing is when the villain is conceding but the PCs are being compelled not to accept the concession.
Ah, alright, I misunderstood.
That scenario seems a bit contradictory, though. It's like the GM's saying "Here, you can have a fate point if you kill off the bad guy right now, or you can pay me a fate point to let him get away." I think once a concession is offered, it needs to be negotiated and accepted or refused without getting more complicated with compels and such.
-
I wonder if the characters can be Compelled to accept or deny a concession.
If the PCs do gank an important character and the concession is something like "nobody could have survived that", what if a character has "No loose ends" or similar as an Aspect?
I feel this is a potentially contradictory setup predicated on blurring the boundaries of several metagame elements.
Do you mean "concession" as in the villain is wanting to give up the fight? Because yeah, if the villain as a CHARACTER is trying to get away, a PC could theoretically be Compelled to have his player keep the conflict going and not let the villain get away. But the Conflict would still be ongoing, and the villain isn't Taken Out until they run out of Stress. In this case, the GM could Compel the Player to keep the conflict going, but the GM could still opt afterwards to offer a Concession to the Players if he wants to avoid the Villain being Taken Out completely.
Or do you mean "Concession" with a capital C, when the GM and Players are negotiating an end to the conflict that leaves the villain in a bad spot, but not as bad as if they had been Taken Out? Because if that is the case, then it makes no sense to simultaneously offer the Concession (a GM maneuver) while simultaneously Compelling the player to not take the Concession. The Concession is happening because the one who offers the Concession wants to get out while the getting is good, and is hoping that the elimination of further conflict and handling off pretty much all control but actual Take Out to the opposing group will end up working for them.
It is not necessarily even a character decision so much as a Player or GM decision: I want this character to remain in the plot, so what can I give you to ensure that happens?
-
However, if we are talking about "concession" in the simple plot sense of having the character/villain give up a conflict - no player-GM negotiating, no metagame Concession, no Fate Points awarded for each Consequence taken in a conflict - then I suppose that sort of concession can be a possible OUTCOME of an Invoke/Compel.
The game mechanic representation of a concession is a Concession.
-
The game mechanic representation of a concession is a Concession.
I don't agree that they are the same thing exactly - not all the time, no. If one side of a conflict just retreats, and the other side fails to pursue them, effectively ending the conflict, I consider that to be a small-c concession. I'm not going to award Fate points to someone who just leaves the conflict without interference.
There could be any number of reasons for the conflict to end this way, but I imagine the most poignant example would be in a conflict in which the players manage to talk down the opposition. Another would be when the players are on their last few stress boxes, and are perhaps about to offer their own Concession, and the villain, who may only be slightly bruised, decides that the fight isn't worth pursuing. Or realizes he has somewhere else to be. In a case like this, I can see a player being Compelled by an Aspect to keep the up the fight, risky though it may be. The villain may come out on top anyway, or the player, and either way, a Take Out or Concession is probably going to follow.
That said, a capital-C Concession *can* involve the villain leaving in exactly the same way. It can look, narratively, the same. The difference is that someone has to call for a Concession on their own, which begins a negotiation. Consequences are counted, Fate points are handed out, etc. ;D
-
I agree with devonapple here, in case anyone cares.
-
I agree with devonapple here, in case anyone cares.
I agree also, it allows the game to have scenes that do not require buzzwords like manuevers/aspects/andConcessions and the story and flow of play can still simply play out. There needs to be that defining thin line between them or in my opinion games will get severly bogged down.
-
Or do you mean "Concession" with a capital C, when the GM and Players are negotiating an end to the conflict that leaves the villain in a bad spot, but not as bad as if they had been Taken Out? Because if that is the case, then it makes no sense to simultaneously offer the Concession (a GM maneuver) while simultaneously Compelling the player to not take the Concession. The Concession is happening because the one who offers the Concession wants to get out while the getting is good, and is hoping that the elimination of further conflict and handling off pretty much all control but actual Take Out to the opposing group will end up working for them.
It is not necessarily even a character decision so much as a Player or GM decision: I want this character to remain in the plot, so what can I give you to ensure that happens?
It makes sense in that the GM has mutually contradictory objectives. He wants his villain to survive. But his player's character has an Aspect that Compels him to ensure the villain does not.
You want this character to remain in the plot, so what can you give me to ensure that happens when I do not want this character to do so?
-
I don't agree that they are the same thing exactly - not all the time, no. If one side of a conflict just retreats, and the other side fails to pursue them, effectively ending the conflict, I consider that to be a small-c concession. I'm not going to award Fate points to someone who just leaves the conflict without interference.
That depends entirely on the goals of the various characters in the conflict.
If any character that 'concedes' the conflict had as a substantial goal anything that would be forfeited by their departure, then that departure, with interference or without, is a Concession.
They have failed in at least one of their objectives due to real or perceived exerted or threatened resistance.
If they have no goals that require them staying, then, no, their departure is not a Concession, but then, it is not really even a concession, either.
-
In order to be a capital-C concession, it needs to be negotiated out-of-character. But if someone runs away because he's losing a fight, rolls to catch up/escape can be used instead of OoC negotiation.
So if I run away from a fight, forfeiting a chance to achieve my goals, it might not be a concession.
-
So if I run away from a fight, forfeiting a chance to achieve my goals, it might not be a concession.
In this particular situation it seems to me that if this isn't a Concession, then you (the player) are underutilizing the concession rules. This is one of the examples in the book of a situation where a concession would be appropriate.
-
If a character is fully capable of guaranteeing their escape without further harm, there is nothing that that character/player could lose by representing their flight by a Concession, and much the character could gain.
If the character cannot guarantee that safe escape, their potential gains by use of a Concession only increase, and their potential losses only decrease.
-
It can be a Concession or it can just be a concession. More than one way to skin a cat, and all.
The thing is, if you have a foolproof method of escape (Swift Transition, Speed+Wings, Gaseous Form, really high Athletics whatever) then you don't need to negotiate. Capital-C Concessions are necessary if you can't escape using your stats.
-
You don't need to, but you have nothing to lose and much to gain.
-
Nothing to lose and many rules to EXPLOIT. Thats a great way to stack up the fate points with little harm to yourself. Oh noes! I quit the fight I have recovery and mythic speed, guess I'll get 1-3 fate points per fight. Piss poor way to guarantee more fate points for players of NPC's in my opinion.
It's obvious many disagree, but I don't like it one bit.
-
Hold on, I've lost the thread of this conversation. Someone please explain the last two posts to me.
-
It's only a Concession if the character fails to achieve something meaningful as a product of their concession, so I don't see the 'exploit', here.
@Sancta:
If you have the means to guarantee a safe escape, a Concession that involves further harm to the character is not likely to meet the 'reasonableness standard', or to be accepted, and so any Concession that is accepted will include that safe escape while also granting the FP benefit for each incurred Consequence.
Silverblaze apparently views benefiting in such a way to be unreasonable.
-
It might reassure Silverblaze to know that it would not be an appropriate Concession if the person was to concede and then allow their compatriots to achieve the goal without them. The circumstances of a concession must represent a clear and decisive disadvantage to the person conceding. That means that if they are conceding under the understanding that their goal is not met (an acceptable Concession), then the goal can not be met.
Edit: Of course a player with mythic recovery could probably concede with some consequences (another example of an acceptable concession) and let his friends finish the fight, but I'd imagine everyone would get a bit tired of that, and additionally it's up to the group to determine what actually constitutes a "clear and decisive disadvantage."
My point to Sancta was that if you are retreating from a fight with your goal unmet, then you might as well be getting the fate points from it, since at that point you're essentially under the circumstances of an acceptable Concession.
-
It might reassure Silverblaze to know that it would not be an appropriate Concession if the person was to concede and then allow their compatriots to achieve the goal without them. The circumstances of a concession must represent a clear and decisive disadvantage to the person conceding. That means that if they are conceding under the understanding that their goal is not met (an acceptable Concession), then the goal can not be met.
I'll note that that sort of thing, too, gets into dangerous territory where the players of the allies of the conceding character have a conflict of interest as to whether they (as members of the 'table') accept the Concession.
I'm not sure that the choices of one player should be able to make the outcomes of the other assembled players' actions, combined, a predetermined failure where the Conceding player's character's actions were not an inherent prerequisite to success.
-
I figure that there are two options where that is concerned. The first is that the decision to concede is made by the party not the individual, so decisions like that are made by the group and effect each equally. The other would be to not allow a single player to concede on the basis of not meeting their goal.
Personally I'd probably use both options whenever one was more appropriate. I would imagine that when a single person wanted to concede there would be other circumstances that would allow for a concession (I'm thinking consequences in particular), and when the goal was out of reach it would be a group consensus.
-
It makes sense in that the GM has mutually contradictory objectives. He wants his villain to survive. But his player's character has an Aspect that Compels him to ensure the villain does not.
You want this character to remain in the plot, so what can you give me to ensure that happens when I do not want this character to do so?
The two operations work on related, but different planes of game mechanics, which is why I feel that they are incompatible.
If the GM says "The villain offers to surrender," but does not initiate a Concession, then it is appropriate to also Compel a Character's Aspect to resist that surrender offer.
If the GM says "I'm going to Concede on behalf of the villain... let's say that he gets away, but drops an important clue to his operations - what does the table think?" then that is a Concession, and a Player isn't really in a position to bring up his Aspect and say "My Character would be motivated to accept no surrender - give me a Fate point and forget about this Concession nonsense."
And even if the Player *did* bring up his Aspect and say "My Character would be motivated to accept no surrender - this Concession won't work for me," then the GM can counter with "Alright, let's say you capture the villain, and find on his person an important clue, but he manages to slip his bonds later during such-and-such?" If the Player further counters with "Naw, my Character would try to kill him," then the GM can keep renegotiating until the outcome suits the table.
Concession is a way of managing narrative outcome.
Compels are a way of managing Character choice, and not, ultimately, Player choice.
Hold on, I've lost the thread of this conversation. Someone please explain the last two posts to me.
Basically, as Silverblaze points out:
Nothing to lose and many rules to EXPLOIT. Thats a great way to stack up the fate points with little harm to yourself. Oh noes! I quit the fight I have recovery and mythic speed, guess I'll get 1-3 fate points per fight.
The logic goes:
A Character that receives Consequences in a Conflict gets Fate Points for each Consequence should the Player successfully negotiate a Concession.
A Character with Recovery powers can take more Consequences more frequently.
A Character with Recovery powers and a plausible way to ensure that their Concession makes sense and is accepted (Mythic Speed) could, ostensibly, get into a lot of Conflicts, take many Consequences, Concede out of them, and start banking Fate Points, if a GM isn't there to call foul.
-
if a GM isn't there to call foul.
Issue solved.
It's not a Concession if they don't fail some significant goal.
If their only goal was to beat some people up a little bit before bugging out, then it's only a Concession if they're forced to bug out before getting to beat those people up.
-
It's not a Concession if they don't fail some significant goal.
If their only goal was to beat some people up a little bit before bugging out, then it's only a Concession if they're forced to bug out before getting to beat those people up.
So bringing this back to a marginally related other topic, the board has discussed Thaumaturgy Rituals intended to Transform a willing recipient, an ally, which is technically a Conflict which must Take Out the target. Fred Hicks has alluded in a previous question that a willing recipient could Concede such a Conflict before it becomes a Taken Out result, or just Concede immediately and allow the Transformation. How would you rule on them?
Could the willing recipient Concede the Conflict of being Transformed, making it cost the spellcaster fewer shifts to cast, and get the benefits of the Transformation?
Could the willing recipient Concede the Conflict, but be obligated to take some detrimental fallout in order to Concede to that Conflict?
Or would the GM need to adjudicate each situation and determine on an ad hoc basis where on this continuum to rule?
-
Also, I have consulted with my gaming community (none of whom, I believe, are on these forums). Regarding the hotpoint issue of whether a GM could simultaneously offer a Concession (for an NPC) while Compelling a PC Aspect (to resist the Concession), the opinions were across the board. It was generally agreed that doing such a thing was putting a player in an awkward position (You! Take this Fate point and kill my villain, or I'm going to make you pay a Fate point to keep him around!), but folks were not as convinced as I that the Compel and the Concession happened on separate metagame planes. They would generally prefer to reward a self-Compel in this case, however, rather than offering the Compel with the same hand as the Concession.
Most of them also tended to favor metagame Concessions which were echoed by similar in-game concessions between characters ("Let me go and I'll tell you where I hid that bomb/the hostages/the launch codes!"), though there was agreement that on occasion, especially with a superhero genre or any genre in which villains coming back from the dead is a generic trope, a concessionless (i.e., no in-character negotiation) "left for dead" style metagame Concession would be appropriate, as long as (of course) the table agreed.
But I stand by my assertion that a Compel really shouldn't make a Concession obligatory, but in the flow of narrative potentiality from Invoke to Compel to response, it should be allowed if it fits the narrative and the GM and players agree it is suitable for the story.
-
So bringing this back to a marginally related other topic, the board has discussed Thaumaturgy Rituals intended to Transform a willing recipient, an ally, which is technically a Conflict which must Take Out the target. Fred Hicks has alluded in a previous question that a willing recipient could Concede such a Conflict before it becomes a Taken Out result, or just Concede immediately and allow the Transformation. How would you rule on them?
Could the willing recipient Concede the Conflict of being Transformed, making it cost the spellcaster fewer shifts to cast, and get the benefits of the Transformation?
Could the willing recipient Concede the Conflict, but be obligated to take some detrimental fallout in order to Concede to that Conflict?
Or would the GM need to adjudicate each situation and determine on an ad hoc basis where on this continuum to rule?
That opinion from Fred directly contradicts several points in the RAW, but works just fine if you drop the capitalization, ie. a willing player may concede the conflict by choosing to fail the roll and choosing not to take consequences, both of which, iirc, are RAW options available to the player.
-
That opinion from Fred directly contradicts several points in the RAW, but works just fine if you drop the capitalization, ie. a willing player may concede the conflict by choosing to fail the roll and choosing not to take consequences, both of which, iirc, are RAW options available to the player.
The game mechanic representation of a concession is a Concession.
How do you reconcile these two statements? Or have you come around to the possibility that a small-c concession may not need to be tied to a capital-C Concession?
-
Could the willing recipient Concede the Conflict of being Transformed, making it cost the spellcaster fewer shifts to cast, and get the benefits of the Transformation?
Yes. I'd probably also allow them to resist at mediocre.
I'm not exactly sure how that's against the book's requirements for a concession (I think it had something to do with interpreting when a conflict begins.) but that discussion has been done elsewhere.
-
I'm not exactly sure how that's against the book's requirements for a concession (I think it had something to do with interpreting when a conflict begins.) but that discussion has been done elsewhere.
I understand. I intended to use it as an example of a mostly-positive Concession, in order to better understand what can be considered a Concession, but I acknowledge the example's potential to inadvertently sidetrack the discussion - my apologies.
-
How do you reconcile these two statements? Or have you come around to the possibility that a small-c concession may not need to be tied to a capital-C Concession?
The small-c concessions in the two statements are distinct.
In the second case, the recipient of the effect (all else being equal) fails no goal by conceding, and as such cannot Concede.
Similarly, in the second case, the actual game mechanic representation would be a Take-Out result, as both defense rolls and Consequences are technically optional, but as the 'attack' ostensibly inflicts stress in excess of the target's stress track, neglecting their use leads to an inevitable 'loss' of the 'conflict'.
-
...my apologies.
No need. I was just trying to avoid being drawn into an old discussion on a subject which I know a few disagree with me on. ;)