You don't have to take a consequence? Really?

[sinker]

First of all, a 24 shift attack from a pure mortal (or anything less than a faerie queen, really) is pure bullshit.  Yes, I know you found cute ways to justify it, but you still pulled the equivalent of "you lose because I said so and I have all the power". 

Meh, if the players can do it (And yes, they can do it with ease) why can't the GM? As long as everyone's still having fun what does it matter?

[noclue]

 A concession is "basically a special form of being taken out--you lose the conflict, but you get to decide your character's fate on your own terms instead of your opponent's. That way your character doesn't have to take any consequences your not willing to take...(YS206)." if they declined the concession they don't get to tell you how many or how severe the Consequences were. They can take a concession before being taken out, but why bother. Edit: for a Fate point, of course.

- I'm mostly annoyed that someone can choose to not take any consequences when they see that they are completely defeated.  I guess I just have to adjust my perception of how Taken Out works.

Yes. Adjust it to, the player has no say in how they lose (well, there's a little caveat about the result still being in character.) just say "you lost. How about you're in love with as an Aspect?

I get e feeling that your problem was that your goal for the conflict was inflicting consequences, rather than something in the fiction.

[luminos]

Meh, if the players can do it (And yes, they can do it with ease) why can't the GM? As long as everyone's still having fun what does it matter?

The players and the GM have a different set of responsibilities, that is why.  If the players manage to work up 24 shifts before a conflict, the GM has the opportunity (and responsibility) to provide opposition to their efforts every step of the way.  The GM has no responsibility to provide opposition to NPC's, and cannot be credibly assumed to handle such responsibility. It would be a textbook case of a conflict of interest on the GM's part. 

[UmbraLux]

-The NPC had made a few assessments about the PC/scene that she could tag using empathy and awareness.  She'd also done some scene-long naval-gazing maneuvers.

-Was it the intention of the NPC to have the PC fall in love with her?  Not quite, but she has an aspect that basically says boys fall all over her.  As well, it made for a good story(long term) to have this particular PC fall for this particular NPC.
@UmbraLux the background is in this thread if you haven't read it and want to: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26973.0.html

Sounds good, I was mostly commenting because any NPC going through that much work to have a PC trailing after like a puppy should (IMO) be central to the nascent story.  As an entry into an involved political game, it sounds excellent.  

- I'm mostly annoyed that someone can choose to not take any consequences when they see that they are completely defeated.  I guess I just have to adjust my perception of how Taken Out works.

Only if they acknowledge that defeat before you roll.  Once you've rolled, they're taking it.  Though I do look for input from the players on what consequences fit.

First of all, a 24 shift attack from a pure mortal (or anything less than a faerie queen, really) is pure bullshit.  Yes, I know you found cute ways to justify it, but you still pulled the equivalent of "you lose because I said so and I have all the power".  

Why?  It wasn't a magical attack.  

As I noted earlier, my only questions were around how it was set up.  But you and I weren't there.  Moreover, it's a fairly good (if standard) entry into a story.  And beautiful women in need of help is pretty much a Dresden trope.  

[sinker]

The players and the GM have a different set of responsibilities, that is why.  If the players manage to work up 24 shifts before a conflict, the GM has the opportunity (and responsibility) to provide opposition to their efforts every step of the way.  The GM has no responsibility to provide opposition to NPC's, and cannot be credibly assumed to handle such responsibility. It would be a textbook case of a conflict of interest on the GM's part. 

The GM's responsibility is to tell a story, and to try to ensure everyone at the table enjoys it. Since different people have a different view of what is fun there's no way to say that a GM should always provide this or that thing. If you'd read the context, and the situation clearly you'd see that both of these responsibilities seem to have been upheld.

Besides that as a GM I have been in so many situations that would have been a conflict of interest (as you describe above) if I was not aware that my only interest was the table's. Realizing that you're not opposed to the player, but working with them is what makes a great GM.

[luminos]

The GM's responsibility is to tell a story, and to try to ensure everyone at the table enjoys it. Since different people have a different view of what is fun there's no way to say that a GM should always provide this or that thing. If you'd read the context, and the situation clearly you'd see that both of these responsibilities seem to have been upheld.

Besides that as a GM I have been in so many situations that would have been a conflict of interest (as you describe above) if I was not aware that my only interest was the table's. Realizing that you're not opposed to the player, but working with them is what makes a great GM.

It's not the GM's responsibilty to tell a story.  Maybe the game can be played that way, I don't know, but its not the automatic default.  The context is that the GM and the player disagreed about what should happen, and about what would be more fun.  This shows that there is some sort of breakdown going on somewhere in the game.  This is not a sign that everything that happened was perfect for his groups social context.

You misunderstand what I mean by conflict of interest.  It's in the GM's best interest to make the conflict with the NPC something that poses a genuine threat the the PC(s).  This responsibility is spelled out in the rules.  If the GM is also given the responsibility to manage credible opposition against the NPC, then he is forced to choose whether he will manage that opposition credibly, thereby undercutting its ability to oppose a PC, or whether he will advocate for the NPC being a threat, thereby undercutting the credibility of his opposition to the NPC.  Characters cannot gain +24 shift attacks without having the opposition to those maneouvers and declarations being managed by the GM.  Thus, if the GM pretends to treat the NPCs the same as the PC's, he has introduced a clear conflict of interest, in which he must abdicate one of the responsibilities he has taken upon himself.  If he wants to create an unwinable fight (for the "story"), he can do so without such a conflict of interest by treating the situation as a pure compel, or even by just saying "your character falls in love, no recourse" if the group will put up with it.  But the GM cannot credibly approach the situation in the way the OP described without messing something up.

[Taran]

@ Luminos:  I do my best not to railroad the players.  In fact the thread I pointed UmbraLux to is exactly about finding a balance between story and player choice.  I guess when you put up one of these posts and ask people for their opinion, you're kind of putting yourself out there with the hopes that people will give you constructive criticism and not call your ideas bullshit.  I'm surprised actually;  I usually find your advice very helpful

But I guess I can explain the situation.

1.  The game is submerged
2.  The NPC is a Main plot character who is 10 refresh and socially spec'd;
3.  The PC instigated contact with the NPC;
4.  The PC's knew every scene aspect that was tagged/taggable and I never hid the fact that the NPC was making assessments and doing maneuvers and they had opportunities to oppose said maneuvers.  In fact, I was quite clear what her intentions were before any social conflict started;
5.  The NPC had aspects justifying her actions.  She also had mental consequences compelling her actions;
6.  Everyone around my table had fun and had a laugh over it
7.  The player that was taken out was given a chance to concede and was fine with what I'd offered him when he'd been taken out

Anyways, this thread is about taking consequences and the little social scenario I used as an example is second to that.  I can see that I had misinterpreted how things should get played out when someone is Taken Out.

[luminos]

Forgive me for coming across too harshly, if that was the case.  I stand by my dislike of the scenario, but it is a great deal more reasonable with those extra details added in.  Hopefully you will still find my future comments helpful.

[admiralducksauce]

I think I'm confused now.  If I'm Taken Out, can't my opponent slap me with a consequence of their choosing as part of the "my ass is theirs" clause of Taken Out?

Being Taken Out should NEVER be a good thing, at least that's how I see it.  Else the concession rules wouldn't need to be there.

[luminos]

I think I'm confused now.  If I'm Taken Out, can't my opponent slap me with a consequence of their choosing as part of the "my ass is theirs" clause of Taken Out?

Being Taken Out should NEVER be a good thing, at least that's how I see it.  Else the concession rules wouldn't need to be there.

I think you are looking at consequences through the wrong end of the scope.  Consequences aren't how you get beat up.  Consequences are how you justify how your character keeps going when they should have been stopped.  They are used to not be taken out.  Of course, there is nothing stopping you from placing an aspect on a taken out character if you feel like its necessary to give that result force.  

Edit:  Look at it this way:  Consequences provide a choice between not losing a fight at a cost, or losing the fight.  If you still inflict consequences when they lose the fight, then there is no reason to hold back on taking consequences.

[Tedronai]

especially given that consequences taken in order to mitigate an attack are chosen by the defender, while those inflicted as part of a taken-out result (if such a thing is allowed) are chosen by the attacker
(so long as, in both cases, they pass a 'reasonableness test' adjudicated by the table as a whole)

[Belial666]

The NPC had made a few assessments about the PC/scene that she could tag using empathy and awareness. She'd also done some scene-long naval-gazing maneuvers.

An aspect from most maneuvers has to be used as soon as possible, or you lose the free tag. So you can't stack up multiple aspects from navel-gazing maneuvers. You can still stack free tags from declarations and assessments though.

First of all, a 24 shift attack from a pure mortal (or anything less than a faerie queen, really) is pure bullshit.

No, it isn't. It merely requires special circumstances. Ritual magic can easily pass the 20-shift mark. A sniper who spends several exchanges making assessments and declarations about vantage points, firing angles, cover and open ground, and then finally aims and fires with all those free tags can also get that headshot without any warning. A wizard attacking at weapon 10, control 10 is making essentially a 20-shift attack. A vampire that attacks under cover of darkness so you can barely see it (stealth+cloak of shadows declaration or maneuver), jumps from atop a car so it has higher ground (alertness/athletics declaration), has waited until you reach the part of the road the heavy rain has flooded (alertness declaration of "slippery terrain"), has assessed your combat style (aspect assessment on you using fists skill), has a base attack skill of +4 and uses his supernaturally strong and clawed hands attacks at +12 with weapon 6, effectively a 18-shifts attack.

And all of the above have happened in-game one time or another to me or by me.

[Taran]

The Breakdown:

She attacked with Rapport +4 which was modified by her presense (+5)
she had the Rapport stunt "Sex Appeal"+2
she assessed that PC was horny with awareness +2 (because of the maneuvers WCV's were placing on patrons - it was a strip club)
she assessed that the PC was "going on instinct" with Empathy (+2) She had the empathy stunt to assess this in one minute
She used a Rapport maneuver to be "Looking good" +2
She spent 2 fate points to invoke 2 Aspects +4 (because of personality/mental consequences which made her act a certain way)
She rolled +3
 The PC defended with a -2 (and chose not to use anything to mitigate any of the damage)

22 Shifts of damage

Because she has her own Line of Perfumes, I gave her a one time free tag/scene when dealing with the Opposite Sex when wearing the perfume.  I didn't tag it because I forgot and, really, it was unnecessary.

Except for spending fate points on Aspects everything was within the scope of the game.  I think he would have been taken out even without spending fate points, but it's what she would have done and in the end it ate up some FP's from the Pool that the Big Bad coudn't use later on.  

Also note that the other PC's were present, in different areas of the bar.  One had a "nick of time" aspect and the other(socially spec'd PC) had "guide my hand".  Neither of them came to help the PC even when they knew what was going on and, like I said, I made her intentions well known to the Players before any social combat started.

[UmbraLux]

An aspect from most maneuvers has to be used as soon as possible, or you lose the free tag. So you can't stack up multiple aspects from navel-gazing maneuvers.

Temporary aspects from maneuvers can last up to the length of a conflict or scene.  Check out YS115 for reference.  That said, I do ask they a) make sense, b) aren't repetitive, and c) use different skills. 

A creative character can easily set up two aspects per exchange (declaration plus maneuver) unless opposed.  Most maneuvers are easy to remove...simply walking out of the bar would have changed the scene and removed several aspects in the scenario above. 

[Taran]

Temporary aspects from maneuvers can last up to the length of a conflict or scene.  Check out YS115 for reference.  That said, I do ask they a) make sense, b) aren't repetitive, and c) use different skills. 

I think he's talking about the free tags.  Maneuvers can last the whole scene, but you're limited on how long they can be tagged.  *shrug*  We let most maneuvers get tagged within the duration of the scene...except for combat...no-one's ever let a maneuver go more than an exchange or 2 before tagging it.