GM Help - Forcing Realistic consequences...

[UmbraLux]

My action is to punch you in the nose.  If my result is at least a zero then I have succeeded in my action (i.e. punched you in the nose) inflicting 0 or more stress.

I don't see a lot of room for debate here.

It's successful as an attack which deals stress to the target.  In other words, the mechanics succeeded.  The narrative has as much room as the table desires to allow.  After all, stress doesn't have to come from the end of someone's fist. 

[ARedthorn]

For the RPG-to-the-face... it doesn't have to be to the face. For a bare minimum success, it hits a nearby object, and the edge of the blast catches the target. Done and done.
For non-explosives (bare minimum success on an attack with a car) you clip the target, but don't flatten them.

I get where people are coming from, the point I'm trying to make is to drive home is what Harry says in the margin of Your Story.
/.-, VV

Ok... true... but:
1- that side margin is fluff, not rules.
2- it's meant to drive home the importance of supernatural strength... it'd be too easy otherwise for players to overlook it when magic barely costs any more.
3- it almost sounds like you're trying to punish players who choose it. If you really feel like Inhuman Strength should have these kinds of consequences, then I HIGHLY recommend that it cost less as well... otherwise, as that player, I'd feel targeted and seriously gipped.
For the same cost, I could get toughness or speed, with no risk, and reasonably as much reward...
If I ignore the might trappings of supernatural strength, I could use Martial Artist + Lethal Weapon to get the Weapon:2- and get the same combat bang for my buck... or a couple custom stunts that improve my Fists rolls directly (rather than grant Weapon rating)... at least a +2 there (same buck when I hit, probably more bang, since I also get the perk of missing far less often). Am I suddenly safe?
If so, I'd suggest that you rethink things a bit. It seems a bit of a double-standard.

Am I still more lethal than I intend?
If so, I'd suggest talking to your players about having a more lethal campaign. If everyone's on board, then you're good to go. Simply make "Life's short" a story aspect, and compel that whenever you feel it's appropriate. The players can still refuse (if they have FP to do so), and it very neatly solves your problem... but don't spring it on your players or try to force anything.

[Richard_Chilton]

You're describing what your character is doing as 'punching the target in the face', when you should be describing what your character is doing as merely 'attack' (plus whatever parameters are necessary to determine the rolls involved, ie. you're using fists, you're supernaturally strong) until after you know the results of the roll because: the defending player chooses their consequences so long as they pass a reasonableness test adjudicated by the table

Two things: 
First, you are talking about how the defending player deals with stress (choosing consequences) and not the action that causes stress.
Second, I'll bundle that point with the next quote.

I see. But that is assuming my action is to "punch you in the nose". If my action is to attack you with my Fists skill which is actually what is happening, then there is a lot of room for debate.

You would say "my action is to attack with my Fists skill"? Really? How does that add to the narrative that is being constructed here? We aren't talking about D&D where you say "I attack with my sword and roll 13, plus my base attack, strenght, Feat A, Feat B, to make it a 48 - does that hit?".  The Dresden role playing game is about building a narrative that describes what is happening - not merely talking about which skill you attack with.

Regardless, the OP contains the words:

the player describes punching the thug in the face

In other words, he added to the narrative by describing what he was doing, not just going "I attack and roll - what happens?".

Richard

[Watson]

You would say "my action is to attack with my Fists skill"? Really? How does that add to the narrative that is being constructed here? Richard

I would definately go for a narrative description of the attack. As long as it just causes stress, it does not really matter. If the target chooses to take a consequence, then it is up to him to decide what that consequence is, more or less regardless of the description of the attack (as long as it is relatively appropriate and approved by the GM).

[UmbraLux]

I'd suggest pre-roll narrative is simply a desired action.  Doesn't mean it happens as narrated with a simple success - after all, there is more than one actor in the exchange.  The actual event results are post roll resolution.

[Haru]

You would say "my action is to attack with my Fists skill"? Really? How does that add to the narrative that is being constructed here?

To be honest: I would. The narrative is added when the roll is finalized. Let's look at it the other way around: The character rolls a +2, while the thug dodges with a +6. Does the players "I punch him in the face" announcement still apply?

I would look at it more like this:
"I punch him"...*roll*...*roll*..."right in the face, rendering him unconscious."
or
"I punch him"...*roll*...*roll*..."right in the face with my supernatural strength, killing him were he stands."
or
"I punch him"...*roll*...*roll*...", but he is too quick and I ram my fist into the wall behind him."

Still a lot of narrative, but it fits the result of the roll a lot better this way around.

[Silverblaze]

Sort of takes out the possibility of aiming for a body part if you can't dictate the result of your roll to a certain degree before hand...no?

[DFJunkie]

In my game we've started rolling, then narrating.  That way you know the final outcome and can work the degree of success as well as tagged/invoked Aspects into the description.  It also obviates the problem at hand: if the player with supernatural strength determines the level of success before narrating the action he can simply enact less lethal actions.

[Tedronai]

I think the crux of the matter here is you declared what the successful result of your action would be before the action is resolved. If you wish to do so, then you have forfeited your ability to choose the result after the action has resolved.

(And Tedronai has already answered that.)

It's more than that, though, because, as the attacker, you don't actually get to solely determine the results of a 'successful' attack unless that attack results in a take-out.  You are, in fact, the minority voice in those negotiations.

[Haru]

Sort of takes out the possibility of aiming for a body part if you can't dictate the result of your roll to a certain degree before hand...no?

I'd say that's what maneuvers and declarations are for, in most cases. If aiming for a specific bodypart in order to do something special, a fate point would probably be a good idea as well, since certain aspects (pun intended) of the human body are simply facts, that you can then exploit, but it would be kind of silly to declare "nose" on every human you fight for a free tag.

[ways and means]

Need to declare 'groin' on all male enemies in a fist fight in future.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Need to declare 'groin' on all male enemies in a fist fight in future.

I think that'd only be available as a take out result if you're going for any sort of realism.  Grounds for that: the effect of a successful attack landing there and the fact that it can be reflexively defended effectively even by someone who's never been in a fight in their life.

It could be a maneuver designed to pass a fragile free tag to anyone else handy though.  It does tend to instinctively focus one's defences in one area to the detriment of defending other vulnerable areas.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

1. Tedronai is right about possible ways to narrate stuff.
[cut for brevity's sake]
Chances are that the players would be glad to accommodate your desire to make the story better.

Damn your Vulcan logic.

[Richard_Chilton]

I kick him in the groin and - roll, roll - miss. (failure)

I kick him in the groin and - roll, roll - he shifts his leg, taking the blow on his thigh. (minor success - 0 or more stress)

I kick him in the groin and - roll, roll - his eyes go wide as he tries to fight through the pain (mild consequence of sore balls).

I kick him in the groin and - roll, roll - he screams in pain, then brings his fist up in rage (moderate consequence of aching balls).

I kick him in the groin and - roll, roll - his face goes white as he battles through the shock (severe consequence of ruptured balls).

I kick him in the groin and - roll, roll - he'll never father another child (extreme consequence of eunuch).

The first part can be said before the roll, the second only after the results are determined, and thus the combat is narrated.  That works for me...

I could see someone doing a social attack to tag the kicker as "a dirty fighter", but that's not part of the combat result.

Richard

[sinker]

Alright VVolf, I think I see the issue. It seems to me that you have a player (or players) who may not understand the nuances of the system, and you're trying to teach him (or them) by negatively reinforcing "incorrect" actions. This can work, however it's definitely not the best way to teach and it can lead to some sore feelings.

What I would suggest is that you sit down with your players and explain to them that in DFRPG the narrative can effect the mechanics and that part of the narrative is theirs. Encourage them to use this power effectively and for the good of the table. Tell them to have fun with it. Explain the abstract concepts that are stress, consequence, and the take out. Help them make the game that you want together. Everyone will really appreciate your guidance.

As for the current discussion, I would think that kicking someone "in the groin" or "in the face" is actually impossible with the mechanics as is. If you kick someone "in the groin" they are the ones who decide what consequences they take. What if you kick me "in the groin" and I decide I take a bruise to my face (mild consequence)? It's perfectly RAW and you (the person who kicked me) can't argue. The defender's fate is entirely their own until they have been taken out. I would think that the better way to deal with that would be to simply kick them or kick "at the groin" or even better "I wind up for a tremendous upward sweeping kick that should go right between his legs!"