Confused About Concessions

[kippers4tea]

I'm a bit confused about when and how concessions are offered. Some of what I've read seems to indicate that you can offer a concession when you take a consequence, but the book says you have to concede before the hit that takes you out, and if you don't want to take a consequence you are taken out when your stress track is bypassed.

I think the root of my confusion is partly whether you can offer to concede when it is not your turn. If anyone can point to someplace that has a more detailed description or example of a concession, or if you could talk a bit about how have seen it run or run it I'd be very grateful.

[Vairelome]

YS206 covers this area.

I believe you may offer a concession at any time before the dice are rolled, even if it's not your turn.  Once dice are rolled, though, you have to check whether that hit takes the character out before that character's player may offer a concession (and if the hit results in the character being taken out, offering a concession is no longer an available option).

You don't need to have taken a consequence in order to concede, though taking a consequence or two first isn't all bad, because you get a FP per consequence taken in that conflict when you concede or are taken out (assuming the taken out result doesn't kill you; being taken out isn't fatal by default, but in some cases it may be depending on your table's character-death preferences).

The bullet points on YS206 provide guidelines as to when it's reasonable to offer a concession, and a general idea of what a concession should look like.  A concession should involve "a clear and decisive disadvantage" for the character conceding--which is reasonable, because what you're getting in exchange is the power to describe the effect of losing on your character.  If the other character had taken you out instead, he would get to describe the terms of your loss.  This disadvantage could be taking a moderate or worse consequence; losing an item of significant value that you'd have to work at reacquiring or replacing; or taking on a long-term temporary Aspect that might be a major debt to another character (and it would take some significant time and effort to pay off the debt or otherwise remove the Aspect).

[cold_breaker]

Yeah, I was a bit fuzzy on this but that's my take on it as well: any time before the dice are rolled.

I've been trying to figure out how to do this for NPCs, since NPCs by default will never fight to the death (except under extreme circumstances) which is why they tend to be squishier. For combat circumstances I take it as thus:

A non-trained npc will concede after a minor
A combat hardened unit (a soldier, guard or brawler) will typically concede after a moderate
Dumb combat hardened unit (like an attack dog, or fae creature) might take a major
Only extreme cases will take extreme or above.

My take on it is GM still gets final say in NPC concessions - not that I wouldn't listen to player arguments if they don't like the concession. Generally, I consider running away to be fair concessions for most situations though, depending on the level of consequences.

[Tedronai]

A non-trained npc will concede after a minor
A combat hardened unit (a soldier, guard or brawler) will typically concede after a moderate
Dumb combat hardened unit (like an attack dog, or fae creature) might take a major
Only extreme cases will take extreme or above.

I would suggest that Severe and Extreme consequences be reserved for those with a significant personal stake in the conflict, or for those who have been brainwashed/etc. to believe that they do. (and, obviously, Extreme consequences should typically be reserved for those with an extreme personal stake in the conflict)

My take on it is GM still gets final say in NPC concessions - not that I wouldn't listen to player arguments if they don't like the concession. Generally, I consider running away to be fair concessions for most situations though, depending on the level of consequences.

The inititiation of a Concession is unilateral.
The nature of that Concession is negotiated.
Any 'take' deviating from this is a substantial houserule affecting the very foundations of the collective naration system.

[cold_breaker]

I would suggest that Severe and Extreme consequences be reserved for those with a significant personal stake in the conflict, or for those who have been brainwashed/etc. to believe that they do. (and, obviously, Extreme consequences should typically be reserved for those with an extreme personal stake in the conflict)

The inititiation of a Concession is unilateral.
The nature of that Concession is negotiated.
Any 'take' deviating from this is a substantial houserule affecting the very foundations of the collective naration system.

Sorry, maybe my wording makes it sound like I'm saying something I'm not.

I've always made it a point that ultimately, GM has Veto rights - not something I want to use, but some times you need to. I wont get into the intricacies of GM fiat since it's such a sticky subject, but suffice it to say that yes, it is a negotiation. I will allow concessions based on certain guidelines though, e.g.

1) The concession fits - people who take minor consequences before conceding will probably get an easy concession, like running away safely. Bigger consequences taken -> harsher concession -> Conceder gets less say. Aspects on the scene could also theoretically affect this as well.
2) The concession benefits the conceder -> Which means essentially you can't have a concession be that the NPC dies any ways if they don't want to die. If conceding is just as bad as not conceding, you wouldn't concede, now would you?

EDIT: oh, to get back to my original thought: the point isn't that there isn't a negotiation per say, but for minor concessions they should be as quick as the GM saying "OK, the NPC takes a hit and runs off. Next?" - This isn't non-negotiable, but it doesn't make sense to have 20 minutes of diliberation every time you punch someone in the face. Go with what makes sense as a default, and let the players argue if they want something different to happen.

[wyvern]

From my perspective, a concession is bowing out of the fight when you could keep going.  So, you can concede before the dice are rolled, and that's usually pretty easy.

After the dice are rolled, well, you can still look at the result and say something like "This conflict isn't worth fate points or a moderate consequence; what's the take-out result they were aiming for?"* and then maybe negotiate a bit to get a concession - but this sort of thing is more likely to result in a concession of "beaten up and left for dead, with a moderate consequence of 'bruises all over'," or maybe "Not only do I not get the information I wanted from this guy, but I'll also take a temporary aspect of 'Dr. Morrison is clearly innocent', which he can call in later for help or protection."

And what if, in order to stay in the fight, the PC would have had to spend an extreme consequence?  Well, you can still - by my definition - technically concede at that point, but doing so is probably going to either involve an aspect change or be nearly indistinguishable from a take-out result, or possibly both.

_____
* Another example I've seen on this boards was someone who said "You know, I think it might be interesting to get taken out here." - I think the context was a soulgaze or using the Sight on a draconic scion.  From my point of view, that's a very clear concession; the player could easily have taken the mental hit, but chose not to.

[Mr. Death]

I think the one solid rule is you can't have a concession take the place of a defense--i.e., once the attack is rolled, you can't concede in order to avoid the attack itself. It's gotta take place either before or after an attack, not during.

Typically, I'll have a villain offer a concession right after taking a Severe consequence if I want them to survive. That way, the players still get the satisfaction of dealing a 'finishing blow' to them, but I can keep them from being killed off (though on at least one occasion, one of the terms of the concession was that the villain take an Extreme consequence).

[Wordmaker]

Mr. Death's handling of it is pretty close to how I plan to go about it in my campaign. I don't want my players thinking I'll use concessions to protect my NPCs from them. I want them to be victories for the players, but where I get some control over the NPC's fate, rather than having my villains killed off before they can have a satisfying impact on the story.