Funny/Epic/Legendary moments

[Baron Hazard]

White Council Apprentice orphan, he has recently found his blood sister who has been practicing magic but not beneath the white council and until recently was hidden from them. Eventually her presence was reported to them and the Apprentices Mentor asked for the sister to take the test. He thought it would take at least a day for a Warden to make his way to the area.

Apprentice was working on a painstakingly long process to erect some nice wards. He spent the last few sessions putting together a list of ingredients, preparing aspects. He starts the ritual and.... Our resident wererat sneaks out of the shadows and spooks him. Kablooey. Hands are Burned to holy hell and she freaks out and starts throwing magic. when the wererat reveals himself to be a were and runs for the door, the Sister tackles him with a magical block and the two of them stalk out the door pissed off, brimming with magic.

And the block vanishes. I give just enough time for the players to go "what?" and look confused when I crack my voice out "WHAT IS GOING ON HERE" and tell them you see a gray cloak and shining sword in hand. ::evil grin:: "and we will call it there till next week."

One of the players was like "Gah!" Stands up and throws her chair over spinning in circles  cussing lol.
---------------
Also the same Apprentice in the first fight (the very first session) one of the Triad hitters tried to run and he popped a dresden-esque enchanted ring. Rolled REALLY well, the the punk rolled REALLY low. I was like "you catch him square in the back, he is hurled forward at great speeds smashing into the nearby brick wall with a sickening crunch audible from across the street.

The true magic of this was the player's response. Note: the apprentice is already under the Doom of Damocles for using magic to kill.

She goes "Yah!" super happy, and then like a split second later it dawns on her about the description and she goes. "ooooooohhhhh noooooo!" and like claps her hands over her mouth and her eyes go wide. lol.

[Since it wasnt clear and everyone freaked out. I did not force her to break a law of magic, the target survived he was just in the ICU. Also yes, she is supposed to deal with take-out. it was the first game. old habits die hard.]

[Mr. Death]

Isn't the player supposed to be the one who decides how Take Outs go?

[Lavecki121]

Yep. You aren't supposed to be able to kill someone unless you decide to. There is not supposed to be a way to "accidentally" break a law of magic. The character might do it on accident but the player is supposed to decide that.

[Addicted2aa]

That's true, but if the difference is some ridiculous amount, like 10 shifts or something, and narrative attack you used is potentially lethal, you're supposed to follow common sense and kill the person.
That situation sounds like it walks the line though.

[Mr. Death]

The player still gets the choice. Especially if the kill is going to break a Law of Magic, which comes with a refresh cost and a very increased chance of getting your head chopped off.

If Baron Hazard is enforcing it as a kill, it's not walking the line so much as screwing the player. A player should never be punished for rolling well.

[Mr. Death]

That's true, but if the difference is some ridiculous amount, like 10 shifts or something, and narrative attack you used is potentially lethal, you're supposed to follow common sense and kill the person.
That situation sounds like it walks the line though.

Added to that, a 10-shift success doesn't necessarily mean the character hits harder, or even hits at all--it means the character succeeded at whatever they're doing really, really well. In the case of magic, that tends to mean controlling the power really well--i.e., less chance of anything happening by accident.

A 10-shift success on a Weapon:5 attack could just as easily be the wizard blowing up the floor in front of the goon, having the goon surrender after seeing what the wizard is capable of. It doesn't have to mean that anyone was injured at all.

[Baron Hazard]

Didnt kill him. Just got close. xP

[Lavecki121]

I kind of do like that. I just reread the original post, and you never said he died but you gave the character the impression that she killed him. Love it.

[Addicted2aa]

Added to that, a 10-shift success doesn't necessarily mean the character hits harder, or even hits at all--it means the character succeeded at whatever they're doing really, really well. In the case of magic, that tends to mean controlling the power really well--i.e., less chance of anything happening by accident.

A 10-shift success on a Weapon:5 attack could just as easily be the wizard blowing up the floor in front of the goon, having the goon surrender after seeing what the wizard is capable of. It doesn't have to mean that anyone was injured at all.

10 shift successful physical attack with weapon 5 means 15 shifts of physical damage. It very much means you hit him harder. If you wanted to do what you described it could be a maneuver to tag on an intimidate (social attack). Remember you figure out the action, before you roll the dice. So when some one decides to attack, with potentially lethal force, they've already made the choice to hurt the person, possibly to the point of killing them. To take it to real life, when you shoot some one, you have a real chance of killing them if you shoot well enough to get them in the torso. To take it the Dresden fiction, he talks about how he holds back his power, before attacking, in order to prevent any chance of killing a mortal with magic.

In my games, I try to highlight the consequences of my players choices. I won't automatically demand they kill someone if they succeed by that much, by I will ask them come up with a reasonably explanation of how the person is taken out. If they can narrate a way out, sweet I have no issues. If they come up with some ridiculous explanation like, "Because I impaled him on a giant shard of ice, his heart has slowed down due to the cold, so he passes out, but survives till we get him treatment" I'll give them the "are you serious" face.

If you want to give the players more narrative control over there own consequences, that's very much within the spirit of fate. But it's kinda out theme and tone for Dresden. It comes down to play styles and neither is right or wrong. I rob my players of a little control to give them the feeling of real consequence. You allow them to pick their own consequence, in order to preserve the co-operative nature of fate. 

[Mr. Death]

10 shift successful physical attack with weapon 5 means 15 shifts of physical damage. It very much means you hit him harder.

No, it does not. It means 15 shifts of physical stress that may or may not translate into any physical damage at all. How that stress manifests is entirely up to the players and the GM. There is nothing that says it has to mean that the weapon actually makes any contact whatsoever with the target.

Remember you figure out the action, before you roll the dice.

You figure out your intent and how it works mechanically before you roll the dice. The actual, narrative result of the attack is decided after all the dice are rolled and the mechanics are decided. Nothing should lock you into a lethal result, unless the player is getting a fate point because that is a compel. Otherwise, the player always chooses how a Taken Out is narrated. The game is very clear on this.

So when some one decides to attack, with potentially lethal force, they've already made the choice to hurt the person, possibly to the point of killing them.

No. The game isn't real life--it stresses repeatedly that the player has the final say in how any Taken Out result plays out.

To take it to real life, when you shoot some one, you have a real chance of killing them if you shoot well enough to get them in the torso. To take it the Dresden fiction, he talks about how he holds back his power, before attacking, in order to prevent any chance of killing a mortal with magic.

The game is not real life. The books are not the games. In game terms, Dresden holds back because he's a high refresh character who doesn't have a ton of fate points to spend on buying out of compels or making invokes.

In my games, I try to highlight the consequences of my players choices. I won't automatically demand they kill someone if they succeed by that much, by I will ask them come up with a reasonably explanation of how the person is taken out.

You have to remember that "Taken Out" just means "No longer participating in this conflict." It doesn't have to mean the person is physically rendered incapable of acting, only that the person will no longer be physically acting.

If you want to give the players more narrative control over there own consequences, that's very much within the spirit of fate. But it's kinda out theme and tone for Dresden.

Not mutually exclusive. If you want to enforce an unintended consequence, that's probably a compel. Remember, Dresden is about dealing with consequences, but it's also about making choices that lead to those consequences.

Or put another way, it's about the characters getting bitten in the ass by the unintended consequences, not the players. The fate system exists so that the players always have the choice.

[Lavecki121]

I think I have to agree a little with Mr. Death, Addicted, Technically a character at the lowest cost, should be able to take at least 20 stress, divided between whatever, and that doesnt include stress tracks. So 15 shifts could take them out but the npc would either have to concede or decide to be taken out. When it happens to PC's they dont die, they "go unconsious" or some effect and are unable to partake in the scene. I could take a 50 stress attack and I would still be considered taken out, not dead.

[Addicted2aa]

No, it does not. It means 15 shifts of physical stress that may or may not translate into any physical damage at all. How that stress manifests is entirely up to the players and the GM. There is nothing that says it has to mean that the weapon actually makes any contact whatsoever with the target.

You're probably right, it doesn't say that explicitly. Reading the metaphor like that seems like a ridiculous stretch though.

Otherwise, the player always chooses how a Taken Out is narrated. The game is very clear on this.

It also makes it clear it's within reason.
 

You have to remember that "Taken Out" just means "No longer participating in this conflict." It doesn't have to mean the person is physically rendered incapable of acting, only that the person will no longer be physically acting.

Taken out doesn't mean that. But throwing a fireball or unloading a clip at someone does.

Not mutually exclusive. If you want to enforce an unintended consequence, that's probably a compel. Remember, Dresden is about dealing with consequences, but it's also about making choices that lead to those consequences.

Exactly. I want them to make the choice, knowing full well that that could cause a death. If I'm using a compel, I'm doing it before they even roll, I'm pushing them towards one particular type of action, as opposed to letting them try an action, then pushing them towards one type of consequence. The difference in our approaches is how much care needs to be taken when making the initial choice. I want consideration taken as the player considers their action. You appear to want the consideration, afterward.

Or put another way, it's about the characters getting bitten in the ass by the unintended consequences, not the players. The fate system exists so that the players always have the choice.

Maybe. I see the point of mechanics as providing the experience for the player, not the character. If I want to tell a story that feels like Dresden, but not create that feeling for the people who are helping me tell the story, I won't use a rules system. I'll just start talking about what would be cool story. It's like in Dread, the jenga tower exists to make the players feel the tension, not to make the characters feel the tension. I want my players to feel the consequences of choice, not just their characters.

[Haru]

Taken out doesn't mean that. But throwing a fireball or unloading a clip at someone does.

Not exactly. I kind of have to agree with both of you. If a player makes it a habit for his wizard to throw high power fireballs at people, then yes, at some point I would enforce the lawbreaker. However, if it happened the first time, I would let him get away with it, but with a warning that keeping this up, he will most certainly kill somebody in the process. I would ask again before he rolls another of those fireballs. If he still wants to do it, he has made his choice.

[Addicted2aa]

I think, though, there's a difference between hitting someone with a weapon 3 with 5 shifts of success (for 8stress), and hitting someone with a weapon 7 for one shift of success (8stress).

I could see that as valid argument during the narration of the take out.

I think I have to agree a little with Mr. Death, Addicted, Technically a character at the lowest cost, should be able to take at least 20 stress, divided between whatever, and that doesnt include stress tracks. So 15 shifts could take them out but the npc would either have to concede or decide to be taken out. When it happens to PC's they dont die, they "go unconsious" or some effect and are unable to partake in the scene. I could take a 50 stress attack and I would still be considered taken out, not dead.

Mooks don't take consequences so they have at minimum 2 stress they could eat before being taken out.
But I think you're missing a part. The NPC is assumed to be taken out by the hit in the scenario. The hit happened to be 15 stress. The discussion is what does 15 stress represent. It assumed to be unmitigated, so take into account that a car is weapon 5. You've been hit with the narrative equivalent of 3 cars. So while in a normal situation you might be able to cut that down, by saying, I take a couple consequences and the rest goes to stress, indicating you were able to avoid the full power of it somehow, that is no longer the case here. You've taken the full blow, and we should already know what the full blow is at this point, the only thing left to decide is what that blow does to you.

Unless you read the metaphor differently.

Not exactly. I kind of have to agree with both of you. If a player makes it a habit for his wizard to throw high power fireballs at people, then yes, at some point I would enforce the lawbreaker. However, if it happened the first time, I would let him get away with it, but with a warning that keeping this up, he will most certainly kill somebody in the process. I would ask again before he rolls another of those fireballs. If he still wants to do it, he has made his choice.

I handle this by just reminding them up front, hey, what your doing is pretty powerful, you sure you want to do this? They say yes, boom, gloves are off.

[Lavecki121]

But I think you're missing a part. The NPC is assumed to be taken out by the hit in the scenario. The hit happened to be 15 stress. The discussion is what does 15 stress represent. It assumed to be unmitigated, so take into account that a car is weapon 5. You've been hit with the narrative equivalent of 3 cars. So while in a normal situation you might be able to cut that down, by saying, I take a couple consequences and the rest goes to stress, indicating you were able to avoid the full power of it somehow, that is no longer the case here. You've taken the full blow, and we should already know what the full blow is at this point, the only thing left to decide is what that blow does to you.

I do understand that, and I like how you run your game and you make the choice very clear. However I feel that if I, a PC, am able to take a 30 shift hit and decide that I have been taken out and still be alive instead of taking all of my consequences (and sometimes no consequences), then NPC's should be able to as well.