Funny/Epic/Legendary moments

[Mr. Death]

a)I suppose, but that seems...cheap and forced. I don't see why it's a big deal to let the narrative play out.

How exactly is a central part of the gameplay system "cheap and forced"? A compel is letting the narrative play out. You seem to be under some weird misunderstanding that compels are somehow not part of the narrative, when reinforcing the narrative is exactly what compels and fate points are for.

It's as if you said that dice are cheap and forced, and instead of using dice you should just let the mechanics play out.

b)The player? If they want to keep someone alive in that situation.

If the player wants to keep something alive, then the character dying is interesting and a consequence that they should be compensated for.

You keep not addressing the point the player has already decided the action. This is not, I roll guns at him. It's I choose to summon up a gout of fire underneath his feet. The point is he's established a narrative action, succeeded at it, and no longer wants to follow the logical result.

Because it's irrelevant and erroneous. If the player succeeds in his roll, then by the RAW, the result is whatever the hell he wants it to be, barring a compel.

This is negotiable, yes, and has to be within reason, but the result of a good roll by no means whatsoever has to mean, "You hit him full on with the full force of the attack." It doesn't even have to mean you hit him with any part of the attack.

A mechanical hit is not, and never has to be, a hit in the narrative. Your position revolves entirely around insisting that this isn't the case, when it is explicitly the case by the RAW.

That's all I'm talking about. That specific situation. In that situation I don't feel I'm complicating there life, if they want the NPC alive.

Then, quite frankly? You're wrong. If they want the NPC alive and you're saying the NPC is dead, that is a direct complication. I honestly do not understand how you think it couldn't be.

[Addicted2aa]

If the player wants to keep something alive, then the character dying is interesting and a consequence that they should be compensated for.
Because it's irrelevant and erroneous. If the player succeeds in his roll, then by the RAW, the result is whatever the hell he wants it to be, barring a compel.

This is negotiable, yes, and has to be within reason, but the result of a good roll by no means whatsoever has to mean, "You hit him full on with the full force of the attack." It doesn't even have to mean you hit him with any part of the attack.

A mechanical hit is not, and never has to be, a hit in the narrative. Your position revolves entirely around insisting that this isn't the case, when it is explicitly the case by the RAW.
Then, quite frankly? You're wrong. If they want the NPC alive and you're saying the NPC is dead, that is a direct complication. I honestly do not understand how you think it couldn't be.

I'm not saying the npc is dead. I'm asking them to tell me how he's alive. If you think saying I attempt to hit some one, succeed on the dice roll, means they can reskin what they were attempting to be something else as part of the success, they read the metaphor alot differently. Now maybe I'm missing a section as you keep saying that's RAW. Could you point to the passage that says, after deciding a course of action you can decide an outcome that is not the most likely result of succeeding on that attempt?

[Lavecki121]

I kind of think you are both on opposite sides of the same coin. Death, you are saying that a character who hasnt decided to do a specific action shouldnt be punished for it, while Addicted is saying that if you decide to do something you are rolling to see that you did it.

Additionally Death is talking about trying to compel the character into getting the death, while Addicted is trying to get the character to self compel. They both have the same effect and the player is still rewarded if they have the character die.

However in Addicted's games (and I only know this because I have played them) he asks upfront "are you sure you want to do this thing even though it can kill him" then the player decides. I have had that come up multiple times and decided to go a different route.

The issue here is deciding what you do before or after the attack, narativly.

Let me try it with an example:

Mr.Death's Player: I want to shoot him...blah blah blah he is taken out, I got him in the leg and he is now taken out, busted knee, whatever

Addicted's Player: I want to shoot him in the head, that may kill him, dont care blah blah blah he is taken out, you cant really change that to say it didnt kill him. Reasonably

[Mr. Death]

I'm not saying the npc is dead. I'm asking them to tell me how he's alive. If you think saying I attempt to hit some one, succeed on the dice roll, means they can reskin what they were attempting to be something else as part of the success, they read the metaphor alot differently. Now maybe I'm missing a section as you keep saying that's RAW. Could you point to the passage that says, after deciding a course of action you can decide an outcome that is not the most likely result of succeeding on that attempt?

The RAW says that on a Taken Out, the player decides what happens. The player decides if the target lives or dies.

Rolling to shoot someone and taking them out doesn't at all have to mean you actually shot them. All it means is that they're no longer fighting. It could mean the player missed by a mile, but in his haste to dodge the target fell and knocked himself out. It does not matter what the player said his intent was before he rolled the dice. If the player succeeds, and the target is Taken Out, the player decides how it plays out. It's an abstract. The only thing set in stone is the outcome after the player and GM decide it.

What you seem to want to do is lock the player's initial action in stone, which really isn't what the game is setting out to do. You're only setting in stone whether the action is a Block, Maneuver, Sprint, or Attack. All of the other details are decided in the outcome of the attack.

I kind of think you are both on opposite sides of the same coin. Death, you are saying that a character who hasnt decided to do a specific action shouldnt be punished for it, while Addicted is saying that if you decide to do something you are rolling to see that you did it.

Kind of. What I'm saying is that the player's action isn't set in stone until the outcome is decided.

Mr.Death's Player: I want to shoot him...blah blah blah he is taken out, I got him in the leg and he is now taken out, busted knee, whatever

Addicted's Player: I want to shoot him in the head, that may kill him, dont care blah blah blah he is taken out, you cant really change that to say it didnt kill him. Reasonably

Pretty much. What I'm saying is "I want to shoot him in the head" is narrating the outcome of a Taken Out.

And even then, the player's only saying, "I want to shoot at his head." There's still nothing in the rules that ever states that he has to actually hit him in the head. You could very easily narrate a non-lethal headshot taken out as, "I shoot at his head, and miss by inches, demonstrating that I can put a bullet in his eye at any time, which leads him to surrender."

[Mr. Death]

D&D Stuff

Funny story, one of my players is also used to D&D, and I had to remind him of this proviso (that the player decides the outcome) when he finished off a guy with a Guns roll that he wanted to keep for questioning.

[Addicted2aa]

I don't see that in the RAW. You can read the metaphor that way, but I don't see that being the case. That's why they ask you to determine what is you want to do narratively before you decide maneuver, block, or attack. You seem to want to put mechanics first than come up with the narration based on what the mechanics did. Again I think we are just adjudication differently. Personally I feel that my version sticks closer to the write up in the DFRPG books(but then of course I would) and yours is closer to fate core.

@Taran, I agree that that D&D frustration is terrible. But I also don't like the cheesyness of throwing a car on someone and them surviving. I think there is a middle ground. You are given the option, provided it can make narrative sense. Also remembering GM rule number 1, don't be a dick. Don't F you're players, and in return ask them to try and keep some sense of realism in the game.

[Lavecki121]

And even then, the player's only saying, "I want to shoot at his head." There's still nothing in the rules that ever states that he has to actually hit him in the head. You could very easily narrate a non-lethal headshot taken out as, "I shoot at his head, and miss by inches, demonstrating that I can put a bullet in his eye at any time, which leads him to surrender."

No see that is the issue. In Addicted's game we have players who say I want to shoot him in the head, do not say what you said. They say exactly that. Addicted will then stop and say "that can kill them if you roll and hit them there, are you ok with that?"

They have decided the outcome prior to rolling the dice.

[Mr. Death]

I don't see that in the RAW.

So you missed the post on the page before that quoted it directly as saying:

If the damage exceeds the character’s stress track,
or occupied boxes “push” the stress off the right
side of the stress track, the character is taken
out, meaning the character has decisively lost
the conflict. His fate is in the hands of the opponent,
who may decide how the character loses.

Emphasis mine.

You can read the metaphor that way, but I don't see that being the case.

What metaphor are you talking about? There's no metaphor there. There's the RAW directly and explicitly saying that the winner of the fight decides what happens to his opponent.

That's why they ask you to determine what is you want to do narratively before you decide maneuver, block, or attack.

Determining the intent of an action is not determining the outcome of the action. By that logic, the target can't decide on a non-lethal consequence to soak the stress, because the attacker decided he wanted to shoot him in the head.

[Baron Hazard]

Mr. Death. Addicted. Kindly take your debate elsewhere.

[Lavecki121]

So, I created a character Nicola Tesla as a spring court knight. He is trying to find out what happened to his court and he finally gets this guy in front of him who might know what the hell is going on. Has a huge battle with him while the rest of the party is stuck outside of a huge wall. Defeats him and is about to question him. Another character (whos goal was to kill this person) uses his gun and smites him in the head, while my character is standing right there saying I wont kill him if he tells me stuff.

So that happens and my character gets real mad at this other guy. But the house is on fire and we got to get out. Tesla rips the guys head off [to do some ritual and get some info] and starts walking down the street. Fire and Police show up and arrest Tesla for murder cuz he has the guys head. Tesla decided to not do the ritual but escaped custody and got the head back.

He walks into the bar that the party has made and throws the head down in front of the guy who killed him saying "here"

[Addicted2aa]

@ baron, chill bro. It's a board. I took it to PM though. If you don't want rules discussions, put it in the title or OP.

[Addicted2aa]

Apologies, that was a bit harsher than it should have been. I've been frustrated in general today.

[Baron Hazard]

Same game, not so much Holy shit bad ass extravaganza, but I think it paints a pretty awesome picture:

Wizard Apprentice (hands horribly burned -6 consequence), Mortal PI with a fae-re-inforced armored cloak and nothing but his wits, Midget Were-rat armed with nothing but his tenacity, smooth tongue and a single use of a boon of summer (that by current plan he CANNOT use yet), and shinto-mystically empowered courier sporting chi-blasts and Lord FREAKING Skavis (armed with a shotgun and broadsword) standing in the elevator with that grim determined look (and the PCs who have that grim I dont want to do this look) while heading from his penthouse skyrise office to fight their way through a faerie war.

Just painst such a dramatically awesome scene to end the game on.

[Taran]

Our wizard had a farm and a Sickly Elderly Wife as his trouble.

The last 4 sessions they uncover some big plot involving the red court.  They'd just questionned a guy, found the location of the main head-quarters.  They had to race an informant to the location before the guy told the Reds a strike team was on it's way.

So they're there, just outside the building about to bust in on the Reds when a players cell phone rings.
It's the Wizards wife:  "John, the heifer's giving birth and I can't deal with it, please come home"

Wizard rolls his eyes but, then, on the phone,

"Oh, John never mind!  Phillip is here, I'll just let him in and he'll help"

Everyone stops and stares at each other.  Phillip is another PC and he's standing right next to the wizard.

I offer him a FP and say, "just before the phone dies, you hear her open the door and invite him in..."

[Baron Hazard]

Ooooh Taran...Evil. I LOVE it.