The concept of conceding

[Wordmaker]

That's definitely not a good situation to have. The GM can't try to concede or ask that the players spare their enemies, and then turn around and make things worse for the players as a result.

[Papa Gruff]

That's definitely not a good situation to have. The GM can't try to concede or ask that the players spare their enemies, and then turn around and make things worse for the players as a result.

As a matter of fact I usually try to make it a very decisive win for the players if I let the villain escape through concession. At least I think I do. It's even in the rules. The concession needs to have a harsh or at least sufficiently painful edge for the looser. Problem is that I sometimes feel my players see it otherwise ...

... thanks for the so far amazing input on this matter by the way. This thread has tremendously helped me rethink the concession mechanic.

[Wordmaker]

Oh, absolutely! A concession really shouldn't be a "Villain disappears in a puff of smoke" situation.

I remember one concession I used when my players were fighting a nest of Red Court vampires and one of them had to use her Severe Consequence to stay in the fight and activated her Righteousness ability (we call it "Holy Boom"). I used a concession to spare the life of the leader, but the players got to see that half his face was melted off. Permanently.

[Tedronai]

Oh, absolutely! A concession really shouldn't be a "Villain disappears in a puff of smoke" situation.

I remember one concession I used when my players were fighting a nest of Red Court vampires and one of them had to use her Severe Consequence to stay in the fight and activated her Righteousness ability (we call it "Holy Boom"). I used a concession to spare the life of the leader, but the players got to see that half his face was melted off. Permanently.

Something like:
"Player: 'Bob-the-True-Believer will take a severe consequence from that attack, triggering Righteousness.  Brace yourselves for the 'Holy Boom'.'
GM: 'Before you pick up those dice, I'd just like to offer a concession on the part of the big bad RCV.  He'll take an extreme consequence as the power of Bob's faith tears into his body, melting half his face clean off, be out of the picture for at least a few months in-game, and his current plans are a wash, but he'll survive and escape.  How's that sound?'
Player: 'Well, I did just take a severe consequence, so I guess chasing him down would be too risky right now.  Yeah, I'll let him get away.  This time.' "?

[Wordmaker]

Basically, yeah.

[Wolfwood2]

Incidentally, at my table we allow Concessions to be offered a little later in the process than the book would indicate.  With us you can offer a Concession after the attack roll against your character but before you make your defensive roll.

We made this change because often folks are a little quick on the draw with attack rolls.  It's not a bad thing; knowing what you want to do and doing it keeps the game moving.  But it seems unfair to make a Concession opportunity some kind of game show buzzer speed contest where you have to realize you should concede and shout your intention to do so before the dice can be picked up and rolled.  It becomes especially important when someone very much not optimized for that sort of combat realizes they have become the target of a powerful attack.

Anyone else do it that way?

[Watson]

What one also shall have in mind is that the one that do concede is in a way rewarded for doing so, by being given a Fate Point for each consequence that he or she had taken during the conflict ("Cashing out" YS206). As a player, I might see it not do I let the big bad villain get away [by accepting the concession], but I also give him X Fate Points, whereas we (i.e. the players) do not get any Fate Points for winning. What I mean is that this might further make the players reluctant to accept a concession by the GM on behalf of the big bad villain.

[Watson]

Anyone else do it that way?

Good point - I might add that to my list of house rules. As you say, otherwise it might end as a game of reflexes - if the player (or GM) states the action and rolls the dice quick enough, the enemy is unable to concede...

[InFerrumVeritas]

What one also shall have in mind is that the one that do concede is in a way rewarded for doing so, by being given a Fate Point for each consequence that he or she had taken during the conflict ("Cashing out" YS206). As a player, I might see it not do I let the big bad villain get away [by accepting the concession], but I also give him X Fate Points, whereas we (i.e. the players) do not get any Fate Points for winning. What I mean is that this might further make the players reluctant to accept a concession by the GM on behalf of the big bad villain.

I think this part of the concession rules was written for players and that consequence was unintended.  At least that's how it reads.  I wouldn't give the villain FP.  Really, I only give my villain's FP if the Players compel them or invoke their aspects (that they don't get free tags for) or if I make them significantly lower refresh than I think is an applicable challenge for the characters.  It's a house rule, but as far as anyone knows that villain could spend those FP getting away.

[Taran]

I thought you only got the fate points when you got taken out, and not when you concede.

[devonapple]

I thought you only got the fate points when you got taken out, and not when you concede.

When you Concede, you get a FP for every Consequence you took in the Conflict.
I don't recall that Taken Out nets any Fate Points.

[Taran]

Sorry, just re-read it.  Should have done that BEFORE I posted. 

[admiralducksauce]

When you Concede, you get a FP for every Consequence you took in the Conflict.
I don't recall that Taken Out nets any Fate Points.

You get FP for Consequences whether you concede or are Taken Out ("cashing out" I believe they call it).