GM Help - Forcing Realistic consequences...

[Tedronai]

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

Unless the defending player decides to take different consequences.  In which case it could be a Mild 'bruised hip' as he turns to block your strike, or a Moderate 'there goes the skin off my hands' as he dives into gravel to avoid your strike, etc.
See above re: the attacker doesn't actually control the results.

[Richard_Chilton]

Unless the defending player decides to take different consequences.  In which case it could be a Mild 'bruised hip' as he turns to block your strike, or a Moderate 'there goes the skin off my hands' as he dives into gravel to avoid your strike, etc.
See above re: the attacker doesn't actually control the results.

Did you read the part where I said:
"the second only after the results are determined, and thus the combat is narrated."

Did I say that the attacker determined the result? No, only that the second part can't be included in the narrative until after the results are determined.

If my action is to punch you in the face then that is my action.  If my action is to kick you  in  the nuts then that is my action.  If my action fails then my action fails.  If my action succeeds and do little damage than I might have only struck a glancing blow.

Which makes for a much more narrative combat than:
Player 1: "I use Fist to maneuver and put a tag on him.  Roll... It works."
Player 2: "I use Fist to maneuver and put a tag on him.  Roll... It works."
Player 3: "I  do a Fists attack and, if necessary, tag those two temporary aspects."

Where is the narrative in that?

Of course one of the problems is that the combat system isn't all that realistic.  Realistically, if I was standing three feet behind someone (who isn't wearing body armour) and fire a shotgun into his back that person is out of the combat.  Especially if I'm doing with surprise.  From that distances there's no way the average person can miss the central mass and take the target down.

In DFRPG, assuming that I have Good skill and Weapon 3 Shotgun and that the surprised PC target doesn't get a defensive the most I can inflict is 10 stress - which is a Mild and Serious.  Of course if he's a "no consequences" goon then he's down but against a PC I'd still have a fight on my hands.

Richard

[Tedronai]

If my action is to punch you in the face then that is my action.  If my action is to kick you  in  the nuts then that is my action.  If my action fails then my action fails.  If my action succeeds and do little damage than I might have only struck a glancing blow.

Or you might have missed entirely, but managed to cause harm in some other way, such as by forcing the target to harm themselves in an attempt to avoid your attack.  And that's the point I've been trying to get across.  Or your attack might have 'succeeded' but failed to inflict any consequences, which could more easily be narrated as having been successfully dodged than it could as having landed to no noticeable effect (see: inhuman+ str vs pure mortal)
You action (before stress and consequences are determined) is not to punch the target in the face, but, at most, to attempt to punch the target in the face.

[toturi]

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?

Why not? Really? How does that not add to the narrative that is being constructed here? It gives the author of the action more freedom over the narrative result of his action after he knows whether the action succeeds or fails.

[sinker]

Did you read the part where I said:
"the second only after the results are determined, and thus the combat is narrated."

Did I say that the attacker determined the result? No, only that the second part can't be included in the narrative until after the results are determined.

The problem that I see is the second half is not yours to narrate. You declare the intent of your action and roll to see it's outcome, however that process only determines whether your action was successful or not successful. How it succeeds is then in the hands of the defender. Even whether or not you take out the defender is ultimately in the defender's hands (unless the defender no longer has any available consequences).

If you shoot at my back with a shotgun I determine whether you hit or not. Regardless of how you feel about it, it's RAW.

[Richard_Chilton]

The problem that I see is the second half is not yours to narrate. You declare the intent of your action and roll to see it's outcome, however that process only determines whether your action was successful or not successful. How it succeeds is then in the hands of the defender. Even whether or not you take out the defender is ultimately in the defender's hands (unless the defender no longer has any available consequences).

Again:
"the second only after the results are determined, and thus the combat is narrated."

Where do I say that the attacking player determines the result by his lonesome?

Richard

[Tedronai]

Perhaps it's a misinterpretation, but it would seem to be implied by stating that your action is to punch someone in the face that you control whether or not you punch someone in the face (subject only to the dice).

[Richard_Chilton]

Perhaps it's a misinterpretation, but it would seem to be implied by stating that your action is to punch someone in the face that you control whether or not you punch someone in the face (subject only to the dice).

A PC takes an action.  The dice say if the action succeeds.

I believe we've talked this subject to death - and since neither of us seem to shifting in our views perhaps it's time we moved on to other topics.

Richard

[VVolf]

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.

Partially yes and partially no, another point of this is that I'm trying to keep the other players from feeling as though they are unimportant in combat.

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 I mentioned earlier, I fully intend to have a talk with my players at the start of the next session. I intend to both apologize for the quadriplegic bit and explain the abstract concepts, but also warn them that there needs to be logical flow from declared attack and desired result and give an example of a successful attack which doesn't actually connect. I'll also mention that he's free to pull his punches with supernatural strength to reduce the additional shifts if the character wants to hold back, as well as a warning that full-tilt attacks are going to be more likely to draw lethal-hit compels.

/.-, VV

[ARedthorn]

If Strength powers in your game come automatically with these risks, what are you giving the player that makes up for that? You are, truthfully, springing it on him after he's already paid for the power. He may not want it anymore, when for the same point cost, he could come up with other helpful, risk-free options.

[polkaneverdies]

Make sure you are hitting the wizard slinging around power 4 attacks spells with the same sort of compels if that is the method you decide to use.

[devonapple]

Make sure you are hitting the wizard slinging around power 4 attacks spells with the same sort of compels if that is the method you decide to use.

Indeed. This is beginning to sound like an earlier thread when we discussed whether or not attacks above a particular damage index were, by definition, automatically lethal, or if the player retains the narrative choice.

The most elegant way to force a player to take the gloves off and agree that their attack causes lethal damage would be (as someone has probably already proposed) to compel an Aspect of theirs - either an existing Aspect, like Hot-Blooded, or a Maneuvered Aspect, like "Irrationally Angry." Setting a bar based on weapon damage is open to too much debate.

[sinker]

Yeah, sounds like you're pretty much on top of this, but I thought I'd remind you that a compel is a function of the aspect, and without an appropriate aspect you can't compel (just as no one can invoke if they don't have an appropriate aspect).

A solution to this is to simply add a "Theme" of sorts that represents the lethality that you feel should be represented. I once ran a one-shot (Night fears actually) with the Theme of "In real life people get hurt" and I thought it definitely kept the atmosphere I was looking for. Keep in mind though that the themes and threats are very much part of the process for determining what each person wants from the game, so make sure that your table is ok with adding such an aspect.

[Tedronai]

so make sure that your table is ok with adding such an aspect.

It probably shouldn't need to be said, but the continued re-emergence of these threads trying to 'force' a particular individual's view of 'realism' on the rest of the group...

That isn't the game they signed up for, and it isn't the game they built their characters for.
You might need to give them the opportunity to re-work their characters for the new game environment, or even start from scratch with an entirely new game featuring that aspect.

And, if they still wouldn't be ok with adding such an aspect, then don't do it.
Because it's their game, too.

[ARedthorn]

What he said. Seconded, carried, brought to vote and passed.
If this is a change you're making for Strength powers only, it makes no sense AND it targets a specific player at the table.
If it's a change to the whole campaign, fine- great even- but GM or not, it's not JUST your decision. Trust me- I've run into that problem myself on occasion- I think every GM has at some point.