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

[Steppenwolf]

Yes, that was my point.
There's a misunderstanding cause of the posts' order.

Read this from Tedronai:

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

and the following responses.

[Tedronai]

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.

Which, aside from the timing, is mechanically indistinguishable from a Concession negotiation of "we'll just go with whatever [the victor] suggests as the result"
From a narrative, perspective, however, it is clearly not in the spirit of a true 'Taken Out' result, in that there is CHOICE for the individual submitting to the result

[Steppenwolf]

Nope.
Concessions are negotiated by all the group.
Taken out is decided by just the victor.

[toturi]

Isn't a concession basically a special form of being taken out?

The difference I see with regular Taken Out and Conceding is that Conceding opens the floor to the group to decide an acceptable Concession instead of only just the opponent. Thus since the opponent(or the would be victor) is part of this group, all he needs to do is to hold to a hardline position.

[Tedronai]

Nope.
Concessions are negotiated by all the group.
Taken out is decided by just the victor.

And for it to be truly in the spirit of a 'Taken Out' result, there can be no meaningful choice involved by the individual responsible for the submitting character
If that individual, then, chooses not to take consequences knowing that neglecting to do so will push their stress beyond capacity, then the outcome is not truly in the spirit of a 'Taken Out' result, and closer to a Concession where the negotiation can be boiled down to "we should just go with what [the victor] says"

[toturi]

One of the guidelines is that a consequence has to be taken as a result of the conflict before the concession is offered.

[Tedronai]

One of the guidelines is that a consequence has to be taken as a result of the conflict before the concession is offered.

Not that I'm contesting this, but I don't see how it meaningfully impacts the discussion.



The fundamental defining factor of a 'Taken Out' result is the lack of choice by the victim of the attack
The fundamental defining factor of a 'Concession' is, instead, it's voluntary nature

Thus, voluntarily submitting to a 'Taken Out' result (by pointedly neglecting to take on a consequence that would allow one to avoid that result) is, in fact, more in line, from a narrative perspective, fundamentally, with a 'Concession'

[Steppenwolf]

In any case, I don't see the reason which can make a character to choose a Taken Out instead on taking Consequences and/or Concede.

Apart from the obvious risk you could be killed or similar, each Consequence is a Fate Point which the Character gains at the end of the Conflict.
Moreover Concessions let the character have power to decide the outcome and so to lessen the effects of the defeat.

[Tedronai]

The original interjection that sparked this little derailment was in regards to a statement by Tallyrand (sp?) with regards to a house-rule that would force a 'Taken Out' result (of dead/dying) in a situation where an attack with a sufficient weapons value resulted in a specified degree of stress beyond the stress capacity of the target, but with no regard to the consequence slots available to that target, thus resulting in what amounts to a forced Concession of death...which is an oxymoron, and punitive at that

[luminos]

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).

You are getting confused with effects that guarantee a takeout, and being taken out itself.  You are taken out as soon as stress goes past your last stress box and you don't use a consequence to reduce it back below that threshold.  You can concede any time, as long as you haven't been taken out.

Page 203 YS defines being taken out as having damage that exceeds a characters stress boxes, if you need the reference.  There are other references in there that say the same thing.

[Steppenwolf]

thus resulting in what amounts to a forced Concession of death...which is an oxymoron, and punitive at that

I agree.
Consequences who can be narratively explained should be always allowed regardless of the weapon value. I think you got the point with the truck and "abraded hands" example.

[toturi]

Not that I'm contesting this, but I don't see how it meaningfully impacts the discussion.

Well, this is how I see it:
1) The conditions of the loss has to represent a clear and decisive disadvantage to the character.
2) Having already taken a moderate consequence, it counts as such a disadvantage, thus there is no further need to specify anything further as terms for the concession.

[LokiTM]

Not to keep beating a dead horse, but I would like to put forward a couple of example scenarios to contrast "taken out" vs "concession", both for general edification as well as to check that I have it right.

Lets assume I start this exchange with a 4 box stress track, no stress and no consequences.

BBG is winding up and looks like he will lay a major smack down on me.

I don't think I can proactively concede at this point because I have not taken any consequences, although it looks like I might be able to negotiate a consequence as part of the concession if everyone at the table feels it is reasonable. I would need to do this before the attack is rolled.

Lets say the guy hits me for 8 stress. Now I know that the real boss BBG is still to come so I don't want to go in to that hurt and I don't think this guy is trying to kill me, just put me down. I could choose to be taken out right now and not suffer any consequences at all (at the risk of whatever "taken out" narration the GM chooses to impose).

I could take consequences, stay in the fight, and then clearly have the option to concede in the next exchange if I want since I have taken consequences.

Clearly not a very macho character, but does this capture the RAW?

[bitterpill]

You can consede at any point if you think your getting into a fight you can't win you say I want to concede this fight by running away and the gm could counter with ok but you have to take the minor  concequence exhausted from running so hard or he could say no the fight would continue and to escape you would have to pass a athletics check or several athletics and endurance tests in a prolonged running scene. If you get taken out you get no say in the outcome and so it will be the GM's carte blanche (or others PC's in PvP) on the outcome.

[Wolfwood2]

Lets say the guy hits me for 8 stress. Now I know that the real boss BBG is still to come so I don't want to go in to that hurt and I don't think this guy is trying to kill me, just put me down. I could choose to be taken out right now and not suffer any consequences at all (at the risk of whatever "taken out" narration the GM chooses to impose).

I could take consequences, stay in the fight, and then clearly have the option to concede in the next exchange if I want since I have taken consequences.

Clearly not a very macho character, but does this capture the RAW?

Yes, except that part of the "taken out" narration could be the GM choosing to impose a consequence anyway.  It you're taken out, the GM is within his rights to both give you a moderate consequence _and_ have your PC get captured or something.

Now that said, if the only way to avoid being taken out is to fill up all your Consequence boxes, then sure, it might be worth your time to just take the hit and let the GM take out your PC.  Effectively dare the GM to kill your PC.  It's probably a pretty safe bluff.