Ambush, Backstab, One Shot, One Kill Scenarios

[devonapple]

The GM can Concede on behalf of a Villain, where Conceding means negotiating a narrative outcome which is better for the Villain than a Taken-Out. A Player can Concede on behalf of a Character, where Conceding means negotiating a narrative outcome which is better for the Character than a Taken-Out. Nothing can Compel a Concession of this type - these are, by their very nature, negotiations between player and GM.

However, if we are talking about "concession" in the simple plot sense of having the character/villain give up a conflict - no player-GM negotiating, no metagame Concession, no Fate Points awarded for each Consequence taken in a conflict - then I suppose that sort of concession can be a possible OUTCOME of an Invoke/Compel. However, the fact remains that, per the rules, Compels should limit a character's choices, not dictate a single choice.

[EdgeOfDreams]

I am not quite sure how your answer relates to my post. The scenario I am describing is when the villain is conceding but the PCs are being compelled not to accept the concession.

Ah, alright, I misunderstood.

That scenario seems a bit contradictory, though.  It's like the GM's saying "Here, you can have a fate point if you kill off the bad guy right now, or you can pay me a fate point to let him get away."  I think once a concession is offered, it needs to be negotiated and accepted or refused without getting more complicated with compels and such.

[devonapple]

I wonder if the characters can be Compelled to accept or deny a concession.

If the PCs do gank an important character and the concession is something like "nobody could have survived that", what if a character has "No loose ends" or similar as an Aspect?

I feel this is a potentially contradictory setup predicated on blurring the boundaries of several metagame elements.

Do you mean "concession" as in the villain is wanting to give up the fight? Because yeah, if the villain as a CHARACTER is trying to get away, a PC could theoretically be Compelled to have his player keep the conflict going and not let the villain get away. But the Conflict would still be ongoing, and the villain isn't Taken Out until they run out of Stress. In this case, the GM could Compel the Player to keep the conflict going, but the GM could still opt afterwards to offer a Concession to the Players if he wants to avoid the Villain being Taken Out completely.

Or do you mean "Concession" with a capital C, when the GM and Players are negotiating an end to the conflict that leaves the villain in a bad spot, but not as bad as if they had been Taken Out? Because if that is the case, then it makes no sense to simultaneously offer the Concession (a GM maneuver) while simultaneously Compelling the player to not take the Concession. The Concession is happening because the one who offers the Concession wants to get out while the getting is good, and is hoping that the elimination of further conflict and handling off pretty much all control but actual Take Out to the opposing group will end up working for them.

It is not necessarily even a character decision so much as a Player or GM decision: I want this character to remain in the plot, so what can I give you to ensure that happens?

[Tedronai]

However, if we are talking about "concession" in the simple plot sense of having the character/villain give up a conflict - no player-GM negotiating, no metagame Concession, no Fate Points awarded for each Consequence taken in a conflict - then I suppose that sort of concession can be a possible OUTCOME of an Invoke/Compel.

The game mechanic representation of a concession is a Concession.

[devonapple]

The game mechanic representation of a concession is a Concession.

I don't agree that they are the same thing exactly - not all the time, no. If one side of a conflict just retreats, and the other side fails to pursue them, effectively ending the conflict, I consider that to be a small-c concession. I'm not going to award Fate points to someone who just leaves the conflict without interference.

There could be any number of reasons for the conflict to end this way, but I imagine the most poignant example would be in a conflict in which the players manage to talk down the opposition. Another would be when the players are on their last few stress boxes, and are perhaps about to offer their own Concession, and the villain, who may only be slightly bruised, decides that the fight isn't worth pursuing. Or realizes he has somewhere else to be. In a case like this, I can see a player being Compelled by an Aspect to keep the up the fight, risky though it may be. The villain may come out on top anyway, or the player, and either way, a Take Out or Concession is probably going to follow.

That said, a capital-C Concession *can* involve the villain leaving in exactly the same way. It can look, narratively, the same. The difference is that someone has to call for a Concession on their own, which begins a negotiation. Consequences are counted, Fate points are handed out, etc.

[Sanctaphrax]

I agree with devonapple here, in case anyone cares.

[Silverblaze]

I agree with devonapple here, in case anyone cares.

I agree also, it allows the game to have scenes that do not require buzzwords like manuevers/aspects/andConcessions and the story and flow of play can still simply play out.  There needs to be that defining thin line between them or in my opinion games will get severly bogged down.

[toturi]

Or do you mean "Concession" with a capital C, when the GM and Players are negotiating an end to the conflict that leaves the villain in a bad spot, but not as bad as if they had been Taken Out? Because if that is the case, then it makes no sense to simultaneously offer the Concession (a GM maneuver) while simultaneously Compelling the player to not take the Concession. The Concession is happening because the one who offers the Concession wants to get out while the getting is good, and is hoping that the elimination of further conflict and handling off pretty much all control but actual Take Out to the opposing group will end up working for them.

It is not necessarily even a character decision so much as a Player or GM decision: I want this character to remain in the plot, so what can I give you to ensure that happens?

It makes sense in that the GM has mutually contradictory objectives. He wants his villain to survive. But his player's character has an Aspect that Compels him to ensure the villain does not.

You want this character to remain in the plot, so what can you give me to ensure that happens when I do not want this character to do so?

[Tedronai]

I don't agree that they are the same thing exactly - not all the time, no. If one side of a conflict just retreats, and the other side fails to pursue them, effectively ending the conflict, I consider that to be a small-c concession. I'm not going to award Fate points to someone who just leaves the conflict without interference.

That depends entirely on the goals of the various characters in the conflict.
If any character that 'concedes' the conflict had as a substantial goal anything that would be forfeited by their departure, then that departure, with interference or without, is a Concession.
They have failed in at least one of their objectives due to real or perceived exerted or threatened resistance.

If they have no goals that require them staying, then, no, their departure is not a Concession, but then, it is not really even a concession, either.

[Sanctaphrax]

In order to be a capital-C concession, it needs to be negotiated out-of-character. But if someone runs away because he's losing a fight, rolls to catch up/escape can be used instead of OoC negotiation.

So if I run away from a fight, forfeiting a chance to achieve my goals, it might not be a concession.

[sinker]

So if I run away from a fight, forfeiting a chance to achieve my goals, it might not be a concession.

In this particular situation it seems to me that if this isn't a Concession, then you (the player) are underutilizing the concession rules. This is one of the examples in the book of a situation where a concession would be appropriate.

[Tedronai]

If a character is fully capable of guaranteeing their escape without further harm, there is nothing that that character/player could lose by representing their flight by a Concession, and much the character could gain.
If the character cannot guarantee that safe escape, their potential gains by use of a Concession only increase, and their potential losses only decrease.

[Sanctaphrax]

It can be a Concession or it can just be a concession. More than one way to skin a cat, and all.

The thing is, if you have a foolproof method of escape (Swift Transition, Speed+Wings, Gaseous Form, really high Athletics whatever) then you don't need to negotiate. Capital-C Concessions are necessary if you can't escape using your stats.

[Tedronai]

You don't need to, but you have nothing to lose and much to gain.

[Silverblaze]

Nothing to lose and many rules to EXPLOIT.  Thats a great way to stack up the fate points with little harm to yourself.  Oh noes! I quit the fight I have recovery and mythic speed, guess I'll get 1-3 fate points per fight.  Piss poor way to guarantee more fate points for players of NPC's in my opinion.

It's obvious many disagree, but I don't like it one bit.