Ambush, Backstab, One Shot, One Kill Scenarios

[Sanctaphrax]

Hold on, I've lost the thread of this conversation. Someone please explain the last two posts to me.

[Tedronai]

It's only a Concession if the character fails to achieve something meaningful as a product of their concession, so I don't see the 'exploit', here.


@Sancta:
If you have the means to guarantee a safe escape, a Concession that involves further harm to the character is not likely to meet the 'reasonableness standard', or to be accepted, and so any Concession that is accepted will include that safe escape while also granting the FP benefit for each incurred Consequence.
Silverblaze apparently views benefiting in such a way to be unreasonable.

[sinker]

It might reassure Silverblaze to know that it would not be an appropriate Concession if the person was to concede and then allow their compatriots to achieve the goal without them. The circumstances of a concession must represent a clear and decisive disadvantage to the person conceding. That means that if they are conceding under the understanding that their goal is not met (an acceptable Concession), then the goal can not be met.

Edit: Of course a player with mythic recovery could probably concede with some consequences (another example of an acceptable concession) and let his friends finish the fight, but I'd imagine everyone would get a bit tired of that, and additionally it's up to the group to determine what actually constitutes a "clear and decisive disadvantage."

My point to Sancta was that if you are retreating from a fight with your goal unmet, then you might as well be getting the fate points from it, since at that point you're essentially under the circumstances of an acceptable Concession.

[Tedronai]

It might reassure Silverblaze to know that it would not be an appropriate Concession if the person was to concede and then allow their compatriots to achieve the goal without them. The circumstances of a concession must represent a clear and decisive disadvantage to the person conceding. That means that if they are conceding under the understanding that their goal is not met (an acceptable Concession), then the goal can not be met.

I'll note that that sort of thing, too, gets into dangerous territory where the players of the allies of the conceding character have a conflict of interest as to whether they (as members of the 'table') accept the Concession.
I'm not sure that the choices of one player should be able to make the outcomes of the other assembled players' actions, combined, a predetermined failure where the Conceding player's character's actions were not an inherent prerequisite to success.

[sinker]

I figure that there are two options where that is concerned. The first is that the decision to concede is made by the party not the individual, so decisions like that are made by the group and effect each equally. The other would be to not allow a single player to concede on the basis of not meeting their goal.

Personally I'd probably use both options whenever one was more appropriate. I would imagine that when a single person wanted to concede there would be other circumstances that would allow for a concession (I'm thinking consequences in particular), and when the goal was out of reach it would be a group consensus.

[devonapple]

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?

The two operations work on related, but different planes of game mechanics, which is why I feel that they are incompatible.

If the GM says "The villain offers to surrender," but does not initiate a Concession, then it is appropriate to also Compel a Character's Aspect to resist that surrender offer.

If the GM says "I'm going to Concede on behalf of the villain... let's say that he gets away, but drops an important clue to his operations - what does the table think?" then that is a Concession, and a Player isn't really in a position to bring up his Aspect and say "My Character would be motivated to accept no surrender - give me a Fate point and forget about this Concession nonsense."

And even if the Player *did* bring up his Aspect and say "My Character would be motivated to accept no surrender - this Concession won't work for me," then the GM can counter with "Alright, let's say you capture the villain, and find on his person an important clue, but he manages to slip his bonds later during such-and-such?" If the Player further counters with "Naw, my Character would try to kill him," then the GM can keep renegotiating until the outcome suits the table.

Concession is a way of managing narrative outcome.
Compels are a way of managing Character choice, and not, ultimately, Player choice.

Hold on, I've lost the thread of this conversation. Someone please explain the last two posts to me.

Basically, as Silverblaze points out:

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.

The logic goes:
A Character that receives Consequences in a Conflict gets Fate Points for each Consequence should the Player successfully negotiate a Concession.
A Character with Recovery powers can take more Consequences more frequently.
A Character with Recovery powers and a plausible way to ensure that their Concession makes sense and is accepted (Mythic Speed) could, ostensibly, get into a lot of Conflicts, take many Consequences, Concede out of them, and start banking Fate Points, if a GM isn't there to call foul.

[Tedronai]

if a GM isn't there to call foul.

Issue solved.

It's not a Concession if they don't fail some significant goal.
If their only goal was to beat some people up a little bit before bugging out, then it's only a Concession if they're forced to bug out before getting to beat those people up.

[devonapple]

It's not a Concession if they don't fail some significant goal.
If their only goal was to beat some people up a little bit before bugging out, then it's only a Concession if they're forced to bug out before getting to beat those people up.

So bringing this back to a marginally related other topic, the board has discussed Thaumaturgy Rituals intended to Transform a willing recipient, an ally, which is technically a Conflict which must Take Out the target. Fred Hicks has alluded in a previous question that a willing recipient could Concede such a Conflict before it becomes a Taken Out result, or just Concede immediately and allow the Transformation. How would you rule on them?

Could the willing recipient Concede the Conflict of being Transformed, making it cost the spellcaster fewer shifts to cast, and get the benefits of the Transformation?
Could the willing recipient Concede the Conflict, but be obligated to take some detrimental fallout in order to Concede to that Conflict?
Or would the GM need to adjudicate each situation and determine on an ad hoc basis where on this continuum to rule?

[devonapple]

Also, I have consulted with my gaming community (none of whom, I believe, are on these forums). Regarding the hotpoint issue of whether a GM could simultaneously offer a Concession (for an NPC) while Compelling a PC Aspect (to resist the Concession), the opinions were across the board. It was generally agreed that doing such a thing was putting a player in an awkward position (You! Take this Fate point and kill my villain, or I'm going to make you pay a Fate point to keep him around!), but folks were not as convinced as I that the Compel and the Concession happened on separate metagame planes. They would generally prefer to reward a self-Compel in this case, however, rather than offering the Compel with the same hand as the Concession.

Most of them also tended to favor metagame Concessions which were echoed by similar in-game concessions between characters ("Let me go and I'll tell you where I hid that bomb/the hostages/the launch codes!"), though there was agreement that on occasion, especially with a superhero genre or any genre in which villains coming back from the dead is a generic trope, a concessionless (i.e., no in-character negotiation) "left for dead" style metagame Concession would be appropriate, as long as (of course) the table agreed.

But I stand by my assertion that a Compel really shouldn't make a Concession obligatory, but in the flow of narrative potentiality from Invoke to Compel to response, it should be allowed if it fits the narrative and the GM and players agree it is suitable for the story.

[Tedronai]

So bringing this back to a marginally related other topic, the board has discussed Thaumaturgy Rituals intended to Transform a willing recipient, an ally, which is technically a Conflict which must Take Out the target. Fred Hicks has alluded in a previous question that a willing recipient could Concede such a Conflict before it becomes a Taken Out result, or just Concede immediately and allow the Transformation. How would you rule on them?

Could the willing recipient Concede the Conflict of being Transformed, making it cost the spellcaster fewer shifts to cast, and get the benefits of the Transformation?
Could the willing recipient Concede the Conflict, but be obligated to take some detrimental fallout in order to Concede to that Conflict?
Or would the GM need to adjudicate each situation and determine on an ad hoc basis where on this continuum to rule?

That opinion from Fred directly contradicts several points in the RAW, but works just fine if you drop the capitalization, ie. a willing player may concede the conflict by choosing to fail the roll and choosing not to take consequences, both of which, iirc, are RAW options available to the player.

[devonapple]

That opinion from Fred directly contradicts several points in the RAW, but works just fine if you drop the capitalization, ie. a willing player may concede the conflict by choosing to fail the roll and choosing not to take consequences, both of which, iirc, are RAW options available to the player.

The game mechanic representation of a concession is a Concession.

How do you reconcile these two statements? Or have you come around to the possibility that a small-c concession may not need to be tied to a capital-C Concession?

[UmbraLux]

Could the willing recipient Concede the Conflict of being Transformed, making it cost the spellcaster fewer shifts to cast, and get the benefits of the Transformation?

Yes.  I'd probably also allow them to resist at mediocre.

I'm not exactly sure how that's against the book's requirements for a concession (I think it had something to do with interpreting when a conflict begins.) but that discussion has been done elsewhere. 

[devonapple]

I'm not exactly sure how that's against the book's requirements for a concession (I think it had something to do with interpreting when a conflict begins.) but that discussion has been done elsewhere.

I understand. I intended to use it as an example of a mostly-positive Concession, in order to better understand what can be considered a Concession, but I acknowledge the example's potential to inadvertently sidetrack the discussion - my apologies.

[Tedronai]

How do you reconcile these two statements? Or have you come around to the possibility that a small-c concession may not need to be tied to a capital-C Concession?

The small-c concessions in the two statements are distinct.
In the second case, the recipient of the effect (all else being equal) fails no goal by conceding, and as such cannot Concede.
Similarly, in the second case, the actual game mechanic representation would be a Take-Out result, as both defense rolls and Consequences are technically optional, but as the 'attack' ostensibly inflicts stress in excess of the target's stress track, neglecting their use leads to an inevitable 'loss' of the 'conflict'.

[UmbraLux]

...my apologies.

No need.  I was just trying to avoid being drawn into an old discussion on a subject which I know a few disagree with me on.