The concept of conceding

[BumblingBear]

My npcs don't concede very often just for that reason.

I generally make them run away and if my PCs can figure out a way to capture or incapacitate them, they win.

[Papa Gruff]

Of course, that 'haggling about conditions' might include, 'no, he's not getting away, I gonna run him down and pop a few shotgun slugs in his head'.

In which case the conceding party might just say: 'Hell no, I have just conceded to prevent this from happening. I prefer running away while screaming ridiculously and wildly flailing with my arms'. What you are proposing isn't reasonable debating over the terms of the concession. It is clearly a taken out result that may be chosen in said situation.

Not sure if you were serious though.

[BumblingBear]

Oh yeah - OP.

Another think you can do is give your NPC an aspect of "recurring plot villain" and compel it for effect.

You can further sweeten the plot by giving all your PCs a fate point when this happens.

[WillH]

That's not how I see it. If someone concedes he concedes. There isn't anything someone can do against it. The only thing that can be done at this point is to haggle about the conditions of the concede. If someone could just veto the concession, then the hole concept would be meaningless.

You offer a concession. There is no requirement to accept that offer.

[Papa Gruff]

You offer a concession. There is no requirement to accept that offer.

Yes. The book speaks about offering the concession but doesn't about the possibility of a declining it. Thus it is implied (at least to me), that if a concession is offered and the given guidelines (discussion, circumstances, etc.) are satisfied it should carry through in some way.

That said: if the conceding part is reasonably defeated and has a good flight plan prepared it is unreasonable to say: 'no, he's not getting away, I gonna run him down and pop a few shotgun slugs in his head' ... to me that just seems not to be the idea of concessions.

[Silverblaze]

I'm 50/50 on concessions.

I like them from a storytelling point of view.  I like that a GM can save his PC's and NPC's lives.  Key word


           

CAN

Not Must...Not this is unavoidable...but CAN

I don't like any idea that it can be "forced". That isn't playing a game that's the GM saying, "Nope, can't kill this guy! You wanted revenge too bad, the bad guy started crying and gets to live.  Doesn't matter how remorseless or angry you are.  He gets away."

This may speak of my personal character(personality not PC or game character)...I'm not inclined to let a hated enemy beg for forgiveness if I want to punch him in the face or call the cops etc.  In a game if someone says uncle, there should be no rule saying I have to just walk away and say "aww shucks he pulled out a concession rule:("  That's just as unfair as never having mercy on an NPC or PC.

I figure an aspect called "Give no quarter and expect none." Should at the very least avoid this concessiojn dillemna.  Which in a game where I was forced into them...I would want on every PC I played.

[MarkB]

As a long-time RPG player, some of the most frustrating moments I can remember - not just for me but for other players - have been when a major opponent who was on the ropes manages to suddenly conveniently slip away just as he was about to be taken out. Such tactics need to be used very sparingly if you don't want to leave players feeling like their victory has been snatched from them.

That said, I think you're correct in stating that a concession can't be rejected outright. The Taken Out, Concession, and Character Death column on page 206 clearly indicates that concessions are an available option even against creatures whose only goal is to kill you.

However, it is clear that if the concession isn't acceptable to the group as a whole, it must be re-worked until you find one that is. In some cases, that's going to mean taking a set of consequences little better than would have resulted from a straight taking-out. If the group have the bad guy cornered and are determined to eliminate him as a threat, it's not unreasonable for them to be looking for a set of consequences severe enough that he won't be a threat for the foreseeable future - a change of High Aspect to "Used ta be a contender" or "Barely alive", for instance.

[devonapple]

Our WCVirgin character was being Compelled to finish off an enemy she had Taken out with Incite Emotion, and was on the verge of giving in, when she called for someone to stop her before it was too late. My character was allowed to declare a Fists attack to snap her out of it, and then she was allowed to Concede that it worked.

[Wordmaker]

I think a lot of roleplayers are used to games where killing the villain is the victory condition. It doesn't have to be that way under the FATE system, and I think that makes the system stronger than most. There's so much more variety to success than just knocking away hit points.

If a villain concedes in order to survive an encounter, the PCs have still won a victory. There's nothing really to be gained just from outright killing him. After all, if one villain dies, the GM will create a new one to replace him.

If a player specifically wants to kill a villain, and feels that what that villain can contribute to the story has run its course, they should speak to the GM and see if he'll agree to a final showdown. After all, if you're going to kill a long-term enemy, would you rather it happened unexpectedly while chasing him down the street, or in a dramatic one on one death match atop a crumbling tower with the fate of the world in the balance?

[Belial666]

There's nothing really to be gained just from outright killing him. After all, if one villain dies, the GM will create a new one to replace him.

Playing it smart IC. Unless there is a compelling reason to keep an enemy alive, you should kill them. Letting them live means having said enemy to deal with again in the future.

[admiralducksauce]

Unless there is a compelling reason to keep an enemy alive

I see what you did there. 

[Wordmaker]

But that assumes a lot. Firstly that your character has the villain in a position where he's helpless enough to kill with ease, which will not always be the case, even if you win the conflict.

Secondly, it assumes your character has the ability to stand there and kill a man. That takes a lot of willpower. Taking a life, even in urban fantasy like The Dresden Files, is a big deal. Any time Harry kills someone, it's a significant act to him, and he never does it simply because he's "playing it smart."

Lastly, it also assumes that the consequences of killing the villain are less severe than those of letting him go. If it's a member of one of the signatories of the Unseelie Accords, you wisk starting a war unless you've got a lot of evidence that you were in the right. If the villain has powerful allies, you'll bring them down on yourself and your loved ones. The villain could be the lesser evil, keeping something worse in check by his continued presence, like Marcone. And even a lone wizard can utter a death curse.

There are plenty of IC reasons to avoid killing people if you can. Just like not every fight needs to result in death, not every villain should be assumed to be of such dire threat that killing him is the single best course of action.

Aside from the IC reasons to let a villain live, what about the OOC ones? A huge amount of how the game works is based on an acknowledgement of how important it is to view the game in a meta sense, as a shared narrative creation, rather than each player just being totally immersed in their own character.

Surely a recurring villain who builds a relationship with the characters, who they look forward to defeating each time he appears, is a lot more fun than not only making your GM come up with new villains every time, but also just facing one throwaway bad guy after another, none of whom really matter in the long run?

[InFerrumVeritas]

Playing it smart IC. Unless there is a compelling reason to keep an enemy alive, you should kill them. Letting them live means having said enemy to deal with again in the future.

This.  Unlike Superhero books, most people tend to feel that letting the powerful thing that's been trying to kill them for some time get away will come back to bite them in the ass.  Even if the GM makes a new villain, the CHARACTERS don't know this will happen.  If they did, they'd see it as having two threats to deal with instead of one and still kill to opponent.

Concessions are awesome.  So is a taken out result that doesn't involve death.  They are great things.  However I think there are some key points:

If you are fighting to the death (which often you won't be depending on the scenario), it's important to Concede while you still have a chance of kicking ass.  You've taken your licks.  You've got some consequences.  But so have your opponents.  There's a very real chance that you could kill them if the fight goes on, but also a chance that you'll be killed as well.  You concede to live and fight another day and they do too.  Staying to fight is an option, but not a risk you're willing to take.

I think this should be done across the board (for PCs too) so that PCs aren't asking for concessions after fighting to the very last against monsters that want to kill them.  If you're escaping, your opponents have to have a reason to not just run you down.

An exception to this is if you have an escape plan set up.  You drop a building on someone, hop into the Nevernever and lose them, Joker Dillema, etc.  Even then though, you're not at your last.  You still have SOMETHING you can do.

Taken out not involving death is a bit different.  That's set by your opponents.  To get this, you should justify why they DON'T want to kill you (capture for ritual, need information, can sell to higher bidder on ebay, boss wants revenge, etc).  

Basically, if your opponent is handing you your ass without taking much in return, has no reason to want you to live, and you don't have an escape plan...you're probably dead.  

Most people/opponents/characters should probably be wary right around the time they start taking Moderate Consequences that they should go (hell, as a GM I might even compel the consequence as a "Hey, you can keep fighting but if you don't get that fixed you might die a few hours afterward...") to suggest a character consider concession before they've got nothing left.

With players, winning the conflict is important.  If you want your enemy to get away, they can.  The characters don't have to be happy about it, but the PLAYERS have to be satisfied with the encounter (they accomplished their goal, had a reason to let the baddie escape, or wanted the fight over too).

Also, Wordmaker makes some excellent points on (I'd address further but it was posted while I was writing this).

If your PCs kill something that will leave a body, there are consequences that can follow.  Use them.  Even if they dump the body, they might still be seen or leave evidence behind.  People might notice that someone is missing.  If it's not human you've got the Accords to fall back on.

[toturi]

Remind the players that conceding doesn't mean that the villain will neccesarily live long enough to take his revenge.

One of my more favorite concession counterplays is to accept the concession that the villian gets away from the PCs alive... but the villian and his henchmen/second in command turn on each other and wipe each other out (think of what Harry said to the Red King - who will bother bringing gifts if they knew he was wounded). That way, the PCs' hands are clean, there is no ready person to step into the villian's shoes, it is all good for the PCs.

[devonapple]

This.  Unlike Superhero books, most people tend to feel that letting the powerful thing that's been trying to kill them for some time get away will come back to bite them in the ass.  Even if the GM makes a new villain, the CHARACTERS don't know this will happen.  If they did, they'd see it as having two threats to deal with instead of one and still kill to opponent.

Even in a superhero game I was in - wherein we were exhorted time and again to be "heroes" and act the part that history would want us to act - sparing the villain was consistently punished by a couple of our more VICIOUS and high-powered enemies. It was an unfortunate situation of mixed signals from the GM, and in the end, our "Superman" resorted to dragging one through our atmosphere until he was reduced to a smoldering hipbone.