Newbie Dresden GM looking for advice/answers to rules questions

[JesterPoet]

Something I would point out is that once a roll is made a Concession is impossible. Even if you are choosing to not take any consequences you are still being taken out and thus have no say in how that happens. You may be conceding by the definition of the word, however using the DFRPG terminology you can't "Concede" you are "Taken out."

Interesting point.  When the thugs "lost," I allowed her to choose what happened to them, so I suppose that fits the definition of "taken out" rather than "concession."  Am I correct in that?  Also, her decision was that three of the thugs booked out of there, but one was so terrified he just curled up by the dumpster saying, "don't hurt me" (effectively allowing them to question the thugs).  That seemed reasonable to me.  What do you think?

As for intimidating others I tend to reserve mental stress for very rare occasions. If you read the section on mental conflicts on YS217-219 you get the idea that it requires one of a few things. 1) Mind magic, 2) A close relationship to the target, or 3) Specific training to be able to do so (with the intimidation skill). I see that as either coming from years of study of the human psyche, or from training in torture tactics. Likely a stunt either way. Otherwise I figure intimidation does social attacks, as explained in the skill description.

Another interesting point.  It walks a fine line, but I'm more inclined to go with "social" as well, only because mental attacks are so specifically defined in the book.  That said, if I use real world logic (never a good idea when arbitrating game rules, from my experience), I find it hard to consider the response a social one in this situation.

Area social attacks are just stumping me right now, however something to note is that social/mental zones are different from physical zones, so it's not all that weird to have a zone-wide social attack that doesn't effect your allies (because they aren't in the same social zone).

It seems to me that this would be something to determine on a case-by-case basis.

[Radijs]

Interesting point.  When the thugs "lost," I allowed her to choose what happened to them, so I suppose that fits the definition of "taken out" rather than "concession."  Am I correct in that?  Also, her decision was that three of the thugs booked out of there, but one was so terrified he just curled up by the dumpster saying, "don't hurt me" (effectively allowing them to question the thugs).  That seemed reasonable to me.  What do you think?

Yes, taken out means that the victor decides the outcome.
Concession means that the victim offers a (reasonable) suggestion and the victor + GM agree if its reasonable enough.

Another interesting point.  It walks a fine line, but I'm more inclined to go with "social" as well, only because mental attacks are so specifically defined in the book.  That said, if I use real world logic (never a good idea when arbitrating game rules, from my experience), I find it hard to consider the response a social one in this situation.

The way I read the example from your first post. She basically tried to scare the thugs in to running. IE by throwing around a few flashy sound effects and loud bangs. I'd treat that as a mental attack using intimidate to get them to crap their pants.

It seems to me that this would be something to determine on a case-by-case basis.

Welcome to FATE.

[Masurao]

My fear is that it could be too easily abused to let social conflicts sidestep the limitations of physical conflicts - and Social Consequences can actually be the hardest ones to work off.

Wouldn't it be stupid if you were being intimidating and your own friends started to run away? Or you are wooing a crowd and your allies fall in love with you? I am not talking about mystical attacks, of course, then it's logical to assume everyone in a zone is affected.

But imagine you'd like to intimidate a group of thugs during a fight, your allies are mixed up in the brawl and you, who happens to be a wizard, shoot a large gout of flame in the air and say, "You've got two choices, punks, walk away or well-done." You'd direct the social attack against the same zone your friends are in, but they'd know you aren't threatening them.

Wouldn't that allow for more 'flexible' zones?

[Radijs]

Agreed. Your allies could be intimidated but they'd probably also think 'glad he's on our side' Though again that might be a good consequence or concession to make if they get stress.

[sinker]

Actually I think there are plenty of situations where your allies or unintended targets could catch some of your mental intimidation attacks. I can even think of an example from the fiction, in White Knight.

(click to show/hide)

When Harry uses the little ball of sunshine to frighten Molly that seems like a pretty straightforward mental intimidation attack on Molly, however I don't think she's the only one effected. Murphy comes out of the situation questioning Harry's control.

As you can see she wasn't the intended target, but she was likely in the same "Social zone" and likely came out of it with a consequence that shaped things to come. The intimidation of Bart in Small Favor has similar consequences too I believe.

Now that I'm thinking about it I don't honestly believe that intimidation is such a fine tool that it can be easily directed at just one target. When you threaten someone, they have to believe that you'll carry that threat out, and if you're that convincing you could potentially have your allies questioning if you really would or not. Of course now I'm just musing over concepts, not saying that I believe that mechanically all intimidation should effect everyone in the vicinity.

Interesting point.  When the thugs "lost," I allowed her to choose what happened to them, so I suppose that fits the definition of "taken out" rather than "concession."  Am I correct in that?  Also, her decision was that three of the thugs booked out of there, but one was so terrified he just curled up by the dumpster saying, "don't hurt me" (effectively allowing them to question the thugs).  That seemed reasonable to me.  What do you think?

And yeah, you did that right, you just used the wrong terminology earlier in the thread, so I got the wrong impression.

[Arcmagik]

Actually I have read the concession and taken out rules several times, and I do not believe that saying once a roll is made you can't concede is accurate. I would like to see something to back that up, because from what I read of Conceding and Taken Out is that you can Concede at any point as opposed to taking damage as long as that damage would not force you to be "Taken Out" and therefore concede the fight, offering your version of the effect and entering into a type of "negotiation" with the person you conceded too. If you  have no choice left to you and the damage would still "Take You Out" of the fight because you can't soak it effectively with consequences then you are forced out of the combat by the Victor's choice.

[sinker]

Finally, a character cannot be saved from a
roll that takes him out by offering a concession.
You have to offer the concession before the roll
that takes out your character. Otherwise, it’s
cheating the opponent out of victory.

So you're right. I suppose that belief resulted as an oversimplification on the part of us regulars.

However personally I feel that if you would normally have to take a consequence or be taken out, but don't want to do either, then it's not ok to offer a concession as an alternative to taking the damage. Unless perhaps you're offering something of equal or greater value like a consequence of a different nature, or something of great significance to either side. Someone made the roll and put the effort into making the damage, so in the same way it's cheating them out of their effort. On the other hand if part of your concession is to offer to take a consequence then I have little issue with it, other than the fact that one could simply take the damage (and the ensuing consequence) and then offer a concession, rather than complicating matters.

Then again I suppose that would all be part of the negotiations.

[mstorer3772]

On the other hand if part of your concession is to offer to take a consequence then I have little issue with it, other than the fact that one could simply take the damage (and the ensuing consequence) and then offer a concession, rather than complicating matters.

That's how I'd run it (says the guy who hasn't run anything in Many Years).

"The roll's been made.  You will accept this stress and/or consequence(s).  If you'd like to take a concession now, go for it."