So the first law can't be broken unless you WANT to break it, right?

[DFJunkie]

What I've been trying to say is this: does forcing a PC to take Lawbreaker and become an NPC just because you roll poorly and he rolls well actually serve the story in any way?  I'd say probably not.  The alternative option, forcing the player to choose between becoming a Lawbreaker and accepting a tactical disadvantage, potentially a deadly one, serve the story?  I'd say yes. 

[Drachasor]

What I've been trying to say is this: does forcing a PC to take Lawbreaker and become an NPC just because you roll poorly and he rolls well actually serve the story in any way?  I'd say probably not.  The alternative option, forcing the player to choose between becoming a Lawbreaker and accepting a tactical disadvantage, potentially a deadly one, serve the story?  I'd say yes. 

I'd say the only way compelling to force breaking a law would be ok is if the player has a fate point to resist the compel, but I agree the better way to go is the lawbreaker or disadvantage if the compel is accepted.

[sinker]

Any 'Taken Out' result in a situation that was not capable of filling the stress track and all remaining consequences IS a Concession.
2-4 over the stress track is taking a moderate or severe consequence, not getting taken out, let alone necessarily killed.

No. Concessions are something that happen before someone is taken out. Concessions are a negotiation between opposing forces. A taken out result is completely dictated by the opposing forces and should be potentially worse then the concession. Even if you hadn't taken any consequences Someone who took you out would be well within their right to say you're dead. If you concede that isn't usually the case.

[noclue]

Also, compels are supposed to be negotiated, not imposed.  If the GM says "you want him dead, you know you want him dead, if you go through with it you will fry him with your magic, not knock him out" or something similar the PC could negotiate it to "realizing that my emotions are running out of control I intentionally miss with my blast of fire, knowing that had I not, I would have burned him to a crisp."

If a GM just waits for a PC to run out of fate points then compels them to become an NPC with no alternatives that GM is horrible. 

I agree. Generally compelling someone when they don't have the fate points to refuse the compel is wankery of the highest order. What's the point? It's not an interesting choice if you don't have a choice. I guess there might be a rare case where the GM isn't being a douche and it really fit the fiction that the PC was so bruised an battered that they just can't resist something. But, the choice to accept (or refuse) a compel is what I find interesting about the game. For my part, I almost never refuse a good compel no matter how many Fate chips i have.

[Tallyrand]

I agree. Generally compelling someone when they don't have the fate points to refuse the compel is wankery of the highest order. What's the point? It's not an interesting choice if you don't have a choice. I guess there might be a rare case where the GM isn't being a douche and it really fit the fiction that the PC was so bruised an battered that they just can't resist something. But, the choice to accept (or refuse) a compel is what I find interesting about the game. For my part, I almost never refuse a good compel no matter how many Fate chips i have.

On the other hand, if you don't compel someone who doesn't have any fate points, they will never have any fate points.  It's like saying to a wizard after he spends his one fate chip on a roll, "Well, looks like nothing else interesting will happen to you this session."

[noclue]

On the other hand, if you don't compel someone who doesn't have any fate points, they will never have any fate points.  It's like saying to a wizard after he spends his one fate chip on a roll, "Well, looks like nothing else interesting will happen to you this session."

You know, you're right. I was thinking about compelling someone with something like "You become and NPC." I guess I mean you don't hit someone hard when they're down. If they're out of Fate, I'd compel things that add complications to the storyline, without challenging the character concept or taking away things they might care about. I would reward them for bringing things to the game that make my job as GM easy, but I wouldn't put the screws to them until they could fight back.

Also, I'm sure someone will point out that they'll get a Fate refresh at some point, so I'll just mention it, though it doesn't change my response.

[bitterpill]

This might be a good time for fate point debt, if a GM compels someone with no fate points I would let that person go into fate point debt so they can still resist but will cost them a compel in the future or one less fate point at the next refresh.

[LokiTM]

No. Concessions are something that happen before someone is taken out. Concessions are a negotiation between opposing forces. A taken out result is completely dictated by the opposing forces and should be potentially worse then the concession. Even if you hadn't taken any consequences Someone who took you out would be well within their right to say you're dead. If you concede that isn't usually the case.

Here is the relevant section:

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.

[Tedronai]

No. Concessions are something that happen before someone is taken out. Concessions are a negotiation between opposing forces. A taken out result is completely dictated by the opposing forces and should be potentially worse then the concession. Even if you hadn't taken any consequences Someone who took you out would be well within their right to say you're dead. If you concede that isn't usually the case.

Here is the relevant section:

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.

It might not have been perfectly worded, but what I meant to indicate is that if you award a 'taken out' result in a situation when instead taking a consequence (or several consequences, even) was and option, and sufficient to prevent it, then the 'taken out' result was voluntary, as the individual with narrative control of that character chose to allow it.  Which is, fundamentally, a Concession.

[Steppenwolf]

It might not have been perfectly worded, but what I meant to indicate is that if you award a 'taken out' result in a situation when instead taking a consequence (or several consequences, even) was and option, and sufficient to prevent it, then the 'taken out' result was voluntary, as the individual with narrative control of that character chose to allow it.  Which is, fundamentally, a Concession.

Nope.
The main difference between being Taken Out and Concessions is just who decide the doom of the defeated contender, if himself or the victor.
Concessions are "conditional peaces", while Taken Out result are "unconditional ones".

The point is not who decides the outcome of the fight, but who decides the consequences of that outcome.

[bitterpill]

If you take out an enemy you decide there exit whether it is death or just defeat, so you can decide that someone you took out could be paralysed for lifem killed or just unconsious. If you decide that a person is unconsious but have all ready lost an arm this will not stop them dieing if they do not get medical treatment so to avoid lawbreaker you would have to choose the out unconsious and then either treat them or finish them in a mundane manner so they don't die by magic.

[sinker]

It might not have been perfectly worded, but what I meant to indicate is that if you award a 'taken out' result in a situation when instead taking a consequence (or several consequences, even) was and option, and sufficient to prevent it, then the 'taken out' result was voluntary, as the individual with narrative control of that character chose to allow it.  Which is, fundamentally, a Concession.

Fundamentally it is one person conceding, or surrendering to the other. However there are definite mechanical differences between that and a capital-C Concession.

[UmbraLux]

Fundamentally it is one person conceding, or surrendering to the other. However there are definite mechanical differences between that and a capital-C Concession.

Can you point out the references?  The only mechanics I'm aware are for Taking someone out (usually 23+ shifts of total damage) and Concessions (anything less than 23 shifts).

[Steppenwolf]

I think Sinker was referring to what Tedronai told about a character who voluntarily choose to be taken out instead on taking consequences.
The character is still Taken Out by a mechanical POV, but he has just chosen that.

[UmbraLux]

I think Sinker was referring to what Tedronai told about a character who voluntarily choose to be taken out instead on taking consequences.
The character is still Taken Out by a mechanical POV, but he has just chosen that.

Either you're using "voluntarily taken out" as a synonym for concession, or I'm not following.

From a mechanical PoV, there are two methods of leaving / ending a conflict:  Taken Out and Conceding.  Both end the conflict, the real difference is in narrative control.  A character who is taken out loses control of any say in how the conflict ends.  A character who concedes shares control (negotiates) with his opponent.  Narratively, the ways those can play out are nearly unlimited.  Mechanically, I'm only aware of the two.