Giving players a choice...

[Richard_Chilton]

Just thought I'd share something I recently tried - giving the players a chance to choose something for the bad guy.

We recently had a major fight - the big bad tracked down the PCs to where one of them lived.  Fortunately the big bad thought they were rival drug dealers (a huge mix up, don't ask) and wasn't prepared for mystic resistance.

So he had two normal toughs with him - a couple of Good skills each, one stunt each, each could take one minor consequence - and the Big Bad had a full sheet and full consequences.  When he realised that things weren't going good for his side Big Bad decided it was time to leave - and he had a rote for that (Evocation veil that lasted for two exchanges).  Two players made Lore declarations that they had a potion that could pierce veils (they didn't want to look at him with the Sight) and one (the powerhouse in hand to hand combat) was able to spot him.  As combat went on I decided to make part of his sheet public (everything except rotes and items - which were on another page), so people could see just what they were (and weren't) doing to him.

When things got really bad for him, he did a non-rote Evocation veil, taking mental stress so he could have it at Legendary for 2 exchanges.    As he was fleeing at Inhuman Speed, the wizard who went through that ordeal I posted a while back had one last shot at him.  At this point he had his 1st stress box unmarked.  He had taken two mild physical consequences (he had a stunt that gave him a second one) and his moderate and severe were used.

Needing to do at least two points of stress the wizard blew through his remaining FATE chips, taping every aspect he could to get bonuses on his targeting rote to cast his magic bolt at the fleeing warlock.  Then the warlock dodged into the bolt (rolled horrible with his defense roll) and when the last of the warlock's defenses were taken into account there were 7 stress remaining.  If he got away he could rest up, gather allies, and even contact criminals to put contracts out on the group.

So I gave the player a choice over whether the warlock used his extreme.  It was up to the player who fried him - the warlock would use his extreme and escape OR the warlock would die from the 7 stress levels.  After all, the wizard had put everything he had behind the attack (tagging everything he could and spending all of his FATE chips) and he knew the attack could kill, so either the bad guy gets away or the bad guy dies - his choice.

After the game, the player said having that choice was one of the funnest moments of RPing that he'd ever had when dice were being rolled.  A moral choice after the dice are rolled and the result determined? He'd never seen that before.

What did he choose? It didn't matter to him (it mattered to the PCs, not the player).  What mattered was that he had the choice.

Richard

[Set Abominae]

I like to give the players a choice too:

Cake or death. 

[Falar]

Cake or death.

Death. ... WAIT NO, I MEANT CAKE! TOTALLY CAKE.

More seriously, the more choice you give players and that you can roll with - the better. And, with the stakes being right there, it was an awesome choice that you presented your player. Totally awesome!

[Set Abominae]

Just thought I'd share something I recently tried - giving the players a chance to choose something for the bad guy.

We recently had a major fight - the big bad tracked down the PCs to where one of them lived.  Fortunately the big bad thought they were rival drug dealers (a huge mix up, don't ask) and wasn't prepared for mystic resistance.

So he had two normal toughs with him - a couple of Good skills each, one stunt each, each could take one minor consequence - and the Big Bad had a full sheet and full consequences.  When he realised that things weren't going good for his side Big Bad decided it was time to leave - and he had a rote for that (Evocation veil that lasted for two exchanges).  Two players made Lore declarations that they had a potion that could pierce veils (they didn't want to look at him with the Sight) and one (the powerhouse in hand to hand combat) was able to spot him.  As combat went on I decided to make part of his sheet public (everything except rotes and items - which were on another page), so people could see just what they were (and weren't) doing to him.

When things got really bad for him, he did a non-rote Evocation veil, taking mental stress so he could have it at Legendary for 2 exchanges.    As he was fleeing at Inhuman Speed, the wizard who went through that ordeal I posted a while back had one last shot at him.  At this point he had his 1st stress box unmarked.  He had taken two mild physical consequences (he had a stunt that gave him a second one) and his moderate and severe were used.

Needing to do at least two points of stress the wizard blew through his remaining FATE chips, taping every aspect he could to get bonuses on his targeting rote to cast his magic bolt at the fleeing warlock.  Then the warlock dodged into the bolt (rolled horrible with his defense roll) and when the last of the warlock's defenses were taken into account there were 7 stress remaining.  If he got away he could rest up, gather allies, and even contact criminals to put contracts out on the group.

So I gave the player a choice over whether the warlock used his extreme.  It was up to the player who fried him - the warlock would use his extreme and escape OR the warlock would die from the 7 stress levels.  After all, the wizard had put everything he had behind the attack (tagging everything he could and spending all of his FATE chips) and he knew the attack could kill, so either the bad guy gets away or the bad guy dies - his choice.

After the game, the player said having that choice was one of the funnest moments of RPing that he'd ever had when dice were being rolled.  A moral choice after the dice are rolled and the result determined? He'd never seen that before.

What did he choose? It didn't matter to him (it mattered to the PCs, not the player).  What mattered was that he had the choice.

Richard

Great stuff Richard. I really think you've hit upon one of the strengths of the system and the mechanisms behind the "taken out" and consequence rules, with your own modest spin on them. The system really shines for its collaborative qualities. Role-playing has always been, to varying degrees, cooperative story telling, and the FATE system really puts a spotlight on that aspect (pun recognized and accepted).

[Masurao]

I think you've done a great thing for the players, being so open and honest with them and I do get the feeling that's what DFRPG is all about.

However, one question arose to me: if the player would have his character kill the warlock, wouldn't that mean he'd be a Lawbreaker? I, of course, don't know if he's a Warden, or if he could convince the Wardens of the warlock's guilt, but it is killing with magic, is it not? Hence, Morgan uses a sword to execute warlocks, right?

[NicholasQuinn]

I think you've done a great thing for the players, being so open and honest with them and I do get the feeling that's what DFRPG is all about.

However, one question arose to me: if the player would have his character kill the warlock, wouldn't that mean he'd be a Lawbreaker? I, of course, don't know if he's a Warden, or if he could convince the Wardens of the warlock's guilt, but it is killing with magic, is it not? Hence, Morgan uses a sword to execute warlocks, right?

Whilst that would depend on the table in question, from my point of view yes; that would be a lawbreaker, at least, as far as the stunt is concerned. Which is why I love how the GM handled this. The lawbreaker stunt changes a character, both in the roleplaying opportunities, and how their sheet looks. However it should always (well, almost) be a player's choice whether or not that is the road they wish their character to travel down.

Richard handled the situation brilliantly. He was fair, giving the player the ultimate choice as-to whether or not the magic would prove lethal. But he also let the player know the consequences of each choice, the bad guy would have time to recover (somewhat) and bring more resources to bare if taking the Extreme consequence, but that if the bad guy didn't, the magic would prove lethal; which is a perfectly reasonable line to draw, given the fluff of the attack, and the character pouring everything into the attack.

One other thought, would be to do it as a joint compel on the Wizard's high concept. Either the magic proves lethal (a [mostly, but I think in context] reasonable compel), or the bad guy escapes, maybe as the Wizard realises what would happen and holds back a little (another perfectly reasonable compel). The player can choose which compel to accept, without paying off the other - there is an example of similar happening to 'Michael' somewhere in the rulebook. As a player can usually control the Taken Out results, I think a Fate point might be a fair exchange for limiting the choice. However, from the sounds of it Richard's group were happy with the outcome, and didn't need that little bit of coercion.

Nice work Richard, and thank you for sharing!

[Richard_Chilton]

However, one question arose to me: if the player would have his character kill the warlock, wouldn't that mean he'd be a Lawbreaker?

Yes, it would have given the PC Lawbreaker.  The thing is, I doubt any of the other PCs would have reported it so it was just a question about the guilt of killing another human being.  And no, I might not have been entirely fair making the choice "save the entire group at cost to your PC OR endanger the entire group" - but the PC had put everything he had behind his attack.  All his FATE points for one last shot at the departing enemy.  He wasn't pulling any punches and seven stress points implies an Epic level of damage - and that was after the Warlock did everything he could to protect himself.

With that much damage, onto a guy who had already taken 2 mild, 1 moderate, 1 severe, and had only one stress (the first box) unchecked I think "He's dead" is an acceptable ruling.

That, and I wanted the players to feel in control.  If they pound their hardest on the Bad Guy and the Bad Guy gets away then it takes something away from them.  This way they decided (because while there was one player making the decision the event table talked about it) if the Bad Guy could run or not...

Interestingly enough, the idea of Lawbreaker wasn't raised until afterwards.  As in "Hey, if I had killed him would I have to take lawbreaker" being asked after the decision.  (Answer "You mean if you had killed him with magic, would you become a lawbreaker for killing someone with magic?").  Instead it was the player's character concept that decided.  He's based around the idea of being a comic book inspired wizard (some of his resources are constantly devoted to maintaining his growing comic collection) and superheroes don't kill.

But on the other hand, after they decided they pointed out that he had bled so they should be able to find his blood - meaning that after resting for a scene (eating the pizzas they ordered) they'll be ready to track him down and handle him - hopefully before he can counterattack them.

So while the choice might not have been completely fair and the PCs saw an angle that I hadn't thought of, the group loved being able to choose.  I'm going to try to do things like this in the future.

Richard

[toturi]

Doesn't the player get to decide how the NPC is taken out, instead of having his choices limited?

[Masurao]

Doesn't the player get to decide how the NPC is taken out, instead of having his choices limited?

Perhaps with an 'accidental' take out, but this was an action where the character poured every last ounce of power into hitting that bastard smack on the buttocks. Really, really SMACK, so I can see the GM saying: "Okay, this spell's got all the juice you had. It's gonna kill the guy, unless you decide to rein it in on the last moment. Your choice, he lives to fight another day or you become a Lawbreaker."

Not only is it fair, it's thematically correct. In the heat of battle, he might have even ruled that the character didn't have the presence of mind to spare the villain. IMHO.

[Richard_Chilton]

Doesn't the player get to decide how the NPC is taken out, instead of having his choices limited?

The choice has to be one acceptable to those at the table.  There have been long threads discussing this issue, but more importantly those at the table enjoyed what happened - which means the spirit of the rules were followed.

Richard

[zenten]

Doesn't the player get to decide how the NPC is taken out, instead of having his choices limited?

Except the player wasn't guaranteed a takeout here, as the NPC had the option of taking an extreme consequence.

[toturi]

Except the player wasn't guaranteed a takeout here, as the NPC had the option of taking an extreme consequence.

I think that was the part of point I was trying to make. The GM was also guilty of playing the meta-game by not having his GMPC take the Extreme consequence but instead pushing the buck to the player. 

Really, really SMACK, so I can see the GM saying: "Okay, this spell's got all the juice you had. It's gonna kill the guy, unless you decide to rein it in on the last moment. Your choice, he lives to fight another day or you become a Lawbreaker."

And I do not think that is fair. The GM is in effect limiting (without even Compelling) the player's choices. The player could have said the NPC gets SMACKed so hard he ends up in a vegetative coma for the next century or so (assuming the NPC has Wizard's Constitution or similar). Remember the player, not the player character, gets to decide how the NPC is taken out. The PC may well want to murder the NPC, but the player may decide not to.

[Becq]

Basically, he offered the player a concession.  "I'm willing to concede, with the outcome that I die.  If you don't accept the concession, I'll take the extreme consequence, which as you know would allow me to escape."  The player, then, chooses to accept or reject the concession.  Sounds fine to me!

[braincraft]

Remember the player, not the player character, gets to decide how the NPC is taken out. The PC may well want to murder the NPC, but the player may decide not to.

The player gets to decide how, within reason; defined in most cases by general table consensus. This means that he doesn't get to give someone cancer with an uppercut no matter how many shifts he gets on his Fists attack, and he doesn't get to blow a dude's head off with a witty bon mot no matter how awesome his Intimidation roll was.

In any case, I'm finding it hard to fault the GM for giving a player the option of gaining a personal story hook instead of just having the NPC take the Extreme Consequence and flee as a Concession anyway, which would have been well within his rights in terms of the rules as written.

[braincraft]

Basically, he offered the player a concession.  "I'm willing to concede, with the outcome that I die.  If you don't accept the concession, I'll take the extreme consequence, which as you know would allow me to escape."  The player, then, chooses to accept or reject the concession.  Sounds fine to me!

Or, if you want to take a more defensibly legalistic position, the NPC takes the Extreme Consequence either way and then offers as two options for his Concession to die or escape.