That's true, but if the difference is some ridiculous amount, like 10 shifts or something, and narrative attack you used is potentially lethal, you're supposed to follow common sense and kill the person.Added to that, a 10-shift success doesn't necessarily mean the character hits harder, or even hits at all--it means the character succeeded at whatever they're doing really, really well. In the case of magic, that tends to mean controlling the power really well--i.e., less chance of anything happening by accident.
That situation sounds like it walks the line though.
Added to that, a 10-shift success doesn't necessarily mean the character hits harder, or even hits at all--it means the character succeeded at whatever they're doing really, really well. In the case of magic, that tends to mean controlling the power really well--i.e., less chance of anything happening by accident.
A 10-shift success on a Weapon:5 attack could just as easily be the wizard blowing up the floor in front of the goon, having the goon surrender after seeing what the wizard is capable of. It doesn't have to mean that anyone was injured at all.
10 shift successful physical attack with weapon 5 means 15 shifts of physical damage. It very much means you hit him harder.No, it does not. It means 15 shifts of physical stress that may or may not translate into any physical damage at all. How that stress manifests is entirely up to the players and the GM. There is nothing that says it has to mean that the weapon actually makes any contact whatsoever with the target.
Remember you figure out the action, before you roll the dice.You figure out your intent and how it works mechanically before you roll the dice. The actual, narrative result of the attack is decided after all the dice are rolled and the mechanics are decided. Nothing should lock you into a lethal result, unless the player is getting a fate point because that is a compel. Otherwise, the player always chooses how a Taken Out is narrated. The game is very clear on this.
So when some one decides to attack, with potentially lethal force, they've already made the choice to hurt the person, possibly to the point of killing them.No. The game isn't real life--it stresses repeatedly that the player has the final say in how any Taken Out result plays out.
To take it to real life, when you shoot some one, you have a real chance of killing them if you shoot well enough to get them in the torso. To take it the Dresden fiction, he talks about how he holds back his power, before attacking, in order to prevent any chance of killing a mortal with magic.The game is not real life. The books are not the games. In game terms, Dresden holds back because he's a high refresh character who doesn't have a ton of fate points to spend on buying out of compels or making invokes.
In my games, I try to highlight the consequences of my players choices. I won't automatically demand they kill someone if they succeed by that much, by I will ask them come up with a reasonably explanation of how the person is taken out.You have to remember that "Taken Out" just means "No longer participating in this conflict." It doesn't have to mean the person is physically rendered incapable of acting, only that the person will no longer be physically acting.
If you want to give the players more narrative control over there own consequences, that's very much within the spirit of fate. But it's kinda out theme and tone for Dresden.Not mutually exclusive. If you want to enforce an unintended consequence, that's probably a compel. Remember, Dresden is about dealing with consequences, but it's also about making choices that lead to those consequences.
No, it does not. It means 15 shifts of physical stress that may or may not translate into any physical damage at all. How that stress manifests is entirely up to the players and the GM. There is nothing that says it has to mean that the weapon actually makes any contact whatsoever with the target.
Otherwise, the player always chooses how a Taken Out is narrated. The game is very clear on this.
You have to remember that "Taken Out" just means "No longer participating in this conflict." It doesn't have to mean the person is physically rendered incapable of acting, only that the person will no longer be physically acting.
Not mutually exclusive. If you want to enforce an unintended consequence, that's probably a compel. Remember, Dresden is about dealing with consequences, but it's also about making choices that lead to those consequences.Exactly. I want them to make the choice, knowing full well that that could cause a death. If I'm using a compel, I'm doing it before they even roll, I'm pushing them towards one particular type of action, as opposed to letting them try an action, then pushing them towards one type of consequence. The difference in our approaches is how much care needs to be taken when making the initial choice. I want consideration taken as the player considers their action. You appear to want the consideration, afterward.
Or put another way, it's about the characters getting bitten in the ass by the unintended consequences, not the players. The fate system exists so that the players always have the choice.
Taken out doesn't mean that. But throwing a fireball or unloading a clip at someone does.Not exactly. I kind of have to agree with both of you. If a player makes it a habit for his wizard to throw high power fireballs at people, then yes, at some point I would enforce the lawbreaker. However, if it happened the first time, I would let him get away with it, but with a warning that keeping this up, he will most certainly kill somebody in the process. I would ask again before he rolls another of those fireballs. If he still wants to do it, he has made his choice.
I think, though, there's a difference between hitting someone with a weapon 3 with 5 shifts of success (for 8stress), and hitting someone with a weapon 7 for one shift of success (8stress).
I think I have to agree a little with Mr. Death, Addicted, Technically a character at the lowest cost, should be able to take at least 20 stress, divided between whatever, and that doesnt include stress tracks. So 15 shifts could take them out but the npc would either have to concede or decide to be taken out. When it happens to PC's they dont die, they "go unconsious" or some effect and are unable to partake in the scene. I could take a 50 stress attack and I would still be considered taken out, not dead.Mooks don't take consequences so they have at minimum 2 stress they could eat before being taken out.
Not exactly. I kind of have to agree with both of you. If a player makes it a habit for his wizard to throw high power fireballs at people, then yes, at some point I would enforce the lawbreaker. However, if it happened the first time, I would let him get away with it, but with a warning that keeping this up, he will most certainly kill somebody in the process. I would ask again before he rolls another of those fireballs. If he still wants to do it, he has made his choice.
But I think you're missing a part. The NPC is assumed to be taken out by the hit in the scenario. The hit happened to be 15 stress. The discussion is what does 15 stress represent. It assumed to be unmitigated, so take into account that a car is weapon 5. You've been hit with the narrative equivalent of 3 cars. So while in a normal situation you might be able to cut that down, by saying, I take a couple consequences and the rest goes to stress, indicating you were able to avoid the full power of it somehow, that is no longer the case here. You've taken the full blow, and we should already know what the full blow is at this point, the only thing left to decide is what that blow does to you.
Taken out doesn't mean that. But throwing a fireball or unloading a clip at someone does.Nope. A successful attack of any kind doesn't have to mean that the attack actually landed in a narrative sense. Just like a consequence from a Guns attack could be hurting yourself in dodging, there is no reason that a Taken Out result from a gunshot has to mean the bullets actually hit anyone. Just like a failed Athletics roll to jump a gap doesn't have to mean you tried, failed, and are plummeting to your death.
Exactly. I want them to make the choice, knowing full well that that could cause a death. If I'm using a compel, I'm doing it before they even roll, I'm pushing them towards one particular type of action, as opposed to letting them try an action, then pushing them towards one type of consequence.That's one way of doing it. The way I've tended to do it, particularly with wizards, is compel them at the start to say, "Here's a fate point. If you take one of these goons out with anything heavier than a Weapon:3 spell, it will be a kill." That retains the choice, encourages them to hold back, and keeps the consequences of going overboard.
The difference in our approaches is how much care needs to be taken when making the initial choice. I want consideration taken as the player considers their action. You appear to want the consideration, afterward.You misunderstand. As I said above, I compel before--I let the player know beforehand that they're up against mortal goons, and they will kill if they throw too much power into taking one of them out.
Maybe. I see the point of mechanics as providing the experience for the player, not the character.This is true, but I don't see how that should mean taking the choice out of the player's hands.
If I want to tell a story that feels like Dresden, but not create that feeling for the people who are helping me tell the story, I won't use a rules system. I'll just start talking about what would be cool story. It's like in Dread, the jenga tower exists to make the players feel the tension, not to make the characters feel the tension. I want my players to feel the consequences of choice, not just their characters.And they can. But they still deserve the choice to accept and deal with those consequences--that's what the fate point system is all about. Most compels, at heart, boil down to the question of, "Will you accept this Fate Point in exchange for dealing with this consequence of this aspect?"
But I think you're missing a part. The NPC is assumed to be taken out by the hit in the scenario. The hit happened to be 15 stress. The discussion is what does 15 stress represent. It assumed to be unmitigated, so take into account that a car is weapon 5. You've been hit with the narrative equivalent of 3 cars. So while in a normal situation you might be able to cut that down, by saying, I take a couple consequences and the rest goes to stress, indicating you were able to avoid the full power of it somehow, that is no longer the case here. You've taken the full blow, and we should already know what the full blow is at this point, the only thing left to decide is what that blow does to you.You're looking at it the wrong way. Once it's decided that it's a Taken Out, all 15-stress represents is, "They are taken out of this conflict in whatever manner the attacker decides." So does 5 stress. Or 3. Stress isn't hitpoints, where the number represents how much physical damage you can endure. It's an abstract meant to represent how much effort it takes to remove you from conflict.
Unless you read the metaphor differently.
I handle this by just reminding them up front, hey, what your doing is pretty powerful, you sure you want to do this? They say yes, boom, gloves are off.I'm just saying that should be a compel--if they're getting a bad outcome from a good dice roll, that's a compel.
Bottom line, for me? Any time a narrative choice is taken out of the player's control--except in the result of a failed roll--they deserve a fate point for it. Once again, a player should never be forced to take a negative, unintended outcome because they rolled too well. That, quite simply, isn't fair.
Meh, They knew what was on the line and went for it. It was their choice. If they didn't intend that outcome, they shouldn't have made that choice.That is something that should go for the characters. The players should always have a choice, unless they've accepted a fate point for the compel.
That is something that should go for the characters. The players should always have a choice, unless they've accepted a fate point for the compel.
The book says explicitly that players always get to decide the outcome of a Taken Out. Nowhere does it ever say, "Unless they roll really, really well, then they're forced to accept an outcome they clearly do not want or intend."
They aren't forced to. They are forced to make their actions make sense. Also I'm not compelling them to do it, because I'm not always trying to force them into that situation.I think you're also misunderstanding what a compel is. It isn't "force the player into something." It's "introduce a complication the player has to deal with because of this aspect." It might limit their choices or encourage them to take one course of action instead of another, but it's not about forcing them to do anything.
that said, I'm fine with them calling it a self compel after.
I think you're also misunderstanding what a compel is. It isn't "force the player into something." It's "introduce a complication the player has to deal with because of this aspect." It might limit their choices or encourage them to take one course of action instead of another, but it's not about forcing them to do anything.
A high roll doesn't mean "more damage." It means, "The player succeeds at what he is trying to do better than expected." A high roll and a large margin of success shouldn't ever be a bad thing for the player.
No I understand what a compel is. The player has to pay their way out, and if they have no FP, they have to take the action after some negotiation. So it's very much trying to force something upon their character.Clearly, you do not. I'd advise you reread the relevant section of the rulebook again--a compel means you're introducing a complication. That complication can be a certain action, but it by no means has to be.
If a player wants to throw a fireball at someone, and they end up throwing a really good fireball, really well, that someone is likely dead.So you're saying that if a player has high skills, and rolls really well, they should be forced into an action that they don't want? How is it at all fair for a good roll to take something out of the player's control?
Maybe not, maybe something happened that saved them. If killing some one isn't an option, don't take actions that could possibly kill them. It shouldn't be a "bad" thing for the player, because they made that choice, knowing it was possible.Being forced to take a lawbreaker--meaning a refresh cost and putting their lives in danger from the wardens--is a bad thing. Again, you're confusing narrative with mechanics. While the characters might be taking risky actions, the players have control over their own successful actions. If the player succeeds via the dice, the player decides what happens.
Mechanically it simulates the situations where highly capable people, Dresden, Karen, Micheal, have to hold back to prevent killing the other person, putting them at a disadvantage.The game is not a simulation. If the player is at a disadvantage because of the nature of something outside of the dice, that is a compel.
If you want to simulate that complication with compels, it does work, but for me it strains the feel of the game....Then why are you using Fate? Using compels to create complications is exactly what Fate Points and compels are for. It's like saying that using dice works if you want, but it strains the feel of the game.
If the attacker wins the roll, the shifts he
acquires translate into a stress value he can
inflict on the defender
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.
The outcome must remain within the realm of
reason—very few people truly die from shame,
so having someone die as a result of a duel of
wits is unlikely, but having him embarrass
himself and flee in disgrace is not unreasonable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have found that this seems to happen frequently. Its like "hey this cool story" then theology breaks loose
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.
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?
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.
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.How exactly is a central part of the gameplay system "cheap and forced"? A compel is letting the narrative play out. You seem to be under some weird misunderstanding that compels are somehow not part of the narrative, when reinforcing the narrative is exactly what compels and fate points are for.
b)The player? If they want to keep someone alive in that situation.If the player wants to keep something alive, then the character dying is interesting and a consequence that they should be compensated for.
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.Because it's irrelevant and erroneous. If the player succeeds in his roll, then by the RAW, the result is whatever the hell he wants it to be, barring a compel.
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.Then, quite frankly? You're wrong. If they want the NPC alive and you're saying the NPC is dead, that is a direct complication. I honestly do not understand how you think it couldn't be.
If the player wants to keep something alive, then the character dying is interesting and a consequence that they should be compensated for.
Because it's irrelevant and erroneous. If the player succeeds in his roll, then by the RAW, the result is whatever the hell he wants it to be, barring a compel.
This is negotiable, yes, and has to be within reason, but the result of a good roll by no means whatsoever has to mean, "You hit him full on with the full force of the attack." It doesn't even have to mean you hit him with any part of the attack.
A mechanical hit is not, and never has to be, a hit in the narrative. Your position revolves entirely around insisting that this isn't the case, when it is explicitly the case by the RAW.
Then, quite frankly? You're wrong. If they want the NPC alive and you're saying the NPC is dead, that is a direct complication. I honestly do not understand how you think it couldn't be.
I'm not saying the npc is dead. I'm asking them to tell me how he's alive. If you think saying I attempt to hit some one, succeed on the dice roll, means they can reskin what they were attempting to be something else as part of the success, they read the metaphor alot differently. Now maybe I'm missing a section as you keep saying that's RAW. Could you point to the passage that says, after deciding a course of action you can decide an outcome that is not the most likely result of succeeding on that attempt?The RAW says that on a Taken Out, the player decides what happens. The player decides if the target lives or dies.
I kind of think you are both on opposite sides of the same coin. Death, you are saying that a character who hasnt decided to do a specific action shouldnt be punished for it, while Addicted is saying that if you decide to do something you are rolling to see that you did it.Kind of. What I'm saying is that the player's action isn't set in stone until the outcome is decided.
Mr.Death's Player: I want to shoot him...blah blah blah he is taken out, I got him in the leg and he is now taken out, busted knee, whateverPretty much. What I'm saying is "I want to shoot him in the head" is narrating the outcome of a Taken Out.
Addicted's Player: I want to shoot him in the head, that may kill him, dont care blah blah blah he is taken out, you cant really change that to say it didnt kill him. Reasonably
D&D StuffFunny story, one of my players is also used to D&D, and I had to remind him of this proviso (that the player decides the outcome) when he finished off a guy with a Guns roll that he wanted to keep for questioning.
And even then, the player's only saying, "I want to shoot at his head." There's still nothing in the rules that ever states that he has to actually hit him in the head. You could very easily narrate a non-lethal headshot taken out as, "I shoot at his head, and miss by inches, demonstrating that I can put a bullet in his eye at any time, which leads him to surrender."
I don't see that in the RAW.So you missed the post on the page before that quoted it directly as saying:
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.
You can read the metaphor that way, but I don't see that being the case.What metaphor are you talking about? There's no metaphor there. There's the RAW directly and explicitly saying that the winner of the fight decides what happens to his opponent.
That's why they ask you to determine what is you want to do narratively before you decide maneuver, block, or attack.Determining the intent of an action is not determining the outcome of the action. By that logic, the target can't decide on a non-lethal consequence to soak the stress, because the attacker decided he wanted to shoot him in the head.
<Warden> Where did you get that?
<Dog> *tilts head toward the market, chuffs*
<Warden> ...Did he take debit?
<Dog> *nods* Awoof.
<Warden> Son of a...
<Mr_Death> Also, FYI: What happened to Brenda was entirely by the numbers. A few weeks ago, I busied myself rolling out her whole encounter. THe Queen ended up filling up all eight of her physical stress boxes and -all three- of her consequences. Without Brenda ever laying a finger on her.
<@[Helen]> Yikes
<[Roman]> Holy christ.
<[Maria]> Jesus fuck
<@[Helen]> Whelp, we're boned
thats pretty epic lol, maybe you made the Black Court a wee to strong for your group.That was the idea. This particular vampire is supposed to be far stronger than the rest of the vampires they've encountered before or since. That said, if she didn't have that item of power, she'd have been toast. One of the wizards can regularly throw around 6-9 shifts of power in fire, and had a handful of fatepoints to burn.
four Kappa demons--one wearing blue-lined samurai armor and wielding a Sephiroth-scale katana (Mozart), one wearing violet robes and wielding a Naginata (Beethoven), one wearing little but blood red strips of cloth with Wolverine-style claws bound to his hands (Salieri), and a fourth wearing light wooden armor highlighted in orange and wielding a Kusari (Bach).
YES. ZOMG YES.Yes, but with coverings over them so the water doesn't spill out easily.
If you don't mind, I need to steal this. Did the kappa have the little bowls of water on their heads?
Ninja turtle parodies
Not only did Lara end up benefiting from the whole scenario, but she set it up in the first place by hiring the Warden, knowing it would goad the Rage King into rash action.
And then we all vowed to leave the White Court the hell alone for a good while because damn they're a confusing bunch of bastards.
Before the session, I gave the player a choice between statues his character could possess to use in the battle (a la Bob and lion statue in Skin Game). He chose a Buddha statue. Two players in the group snuck into the warehouse-lair of the warlock, while the Spirit/Buddha smashed his way through like an enlightened Kool Aid Man.I've been giggling like an idiot at that description for the last few minutes.
Added to that, a 10-shift success doesn't necessarily mean the character hits harder, or even hits at all--it means the character succeeded at whatever they're doing really, really well. In the case of magic, that tends to mean controlling the power really well--i.e., less chance of anything happening by accident.Isn't there an option in the "quality" talk about that that indicates that instead of improving quality of outcome, you can reduce the time it took to do it? So with that many extra shifts, perhaps instead of taking the character's entire exchange to do that... the excess shifts shorten the task down to a supplemental action and he still gets his exchange turn? Not sure, but seems reasonable.
A 10-shift success on a Weapon:5 attack could just as easily be the wizard blowing up the floor in front of the goon, having the goon surrender after seeing what the wizard is capable of. It doesn't have to mean that anyone was injured at all.
Isn't there an option in the "quality" talk about that that indicates that instead of improving quality of outcome, you can reduce the time it took to do it? So with that many extra shifts, perhaps instead of taking the character's entire exchange to do that... the excess shifts shorten the task down to a supplemental action and he still gets his exchange turn? Not sure, but seems reasonable.
Bwhahaha, I always love dropping a dragon on my players.
3) Me:So, the cops want to know why you had a shotgun AND a .357 Magnum in your vehicle while visiting a city park."
Him:"I wanted to go duck hunting!"
All funny, but this one is pure gold!Especially since I had described said park (with large duck-filled fountain) as sandwiched between a hospital and a grade school--rather like a real-life park where I live.