Concessions

[Wordmaker]

This came up recently at my table, when I had an NPC concede during a fight.

The question raised by my group was when can concessions be made?

The way I've been running them is that they can be made any point before the dice roll that takes them out, as it says on pg. 206 of YS. In the session this happened, an NPC was clearly losing the fight and I wanted to get him out of it before the players killed him. So when it came around to the player who was fighting him, before the player rolled, I conceded. There was some disagreement about whether or not this was fair.

Some players argue that concessions have to happen on the NPC's turn, while others say having them happen on the NPC's turn isn't fair.

Personally, I've always thought concessions were meant to happen right before an attacker rolls their dice, so it's the choice between taking a sure way out of being killed/captured, and taking the risk to see how the dice roll.

Based on a reading of the rules, it seems that, aside from the fact you can't concede after an attack roll that would take you out, you can concede whether you like.

[Taran]

You can concede ANY time.  But yes, you should choose to concede before any dice are rolled because it seems unfair to wait to see if you can defend against an attack and then, when you find out you can't, choose to concede instead of taking stress/consequences.  You could immediately concede after that attack, if it didn't take you out, even.

It doesn't have to be on your turn.

Thematically, maybe the player hit the NPC and knocked him over the side of a cliff or out a window and the PC's can't find him or knocked him unconscious...the problem with the last one is they can always choose to kill him later...which isn't a great concession.

In other words, I'm backing your adjudication, Wordmaker.

[UmbraLux]

Concessions should happen before the roll.  More importantly, concessions are negotiated...and, as a negotiation, don't have to be accepted.

In other words you'll generally need to make sure you're giving up something material with the concession and not simply using it as an escape hatch. 

[cold_breaker]

Yeah, had this argument recently as well, with a player who didn't think the dice roll matters.

Concessions can happen ANY time, except after a roll has taken place. Can't dodge an attack after the fact. Typically though, I like to make them just after taking damage, or when a certain condition is met (e.g. the second a fight looks unwinable from the NPCs perspective) - seems kind of munchkiny to do it just before the PC attacks.  The only in charactor reason I could see for this is if the 'condition' being met is any of his attackers paying any attention to him.

[Wordmaker]

Cool. Just wanted to make sure I was doing it right.

I do try to keep concessions making sense. If I concede just before a PC attacks, then I go for a concession that includes their attack.

[Sanctaphrax]

In the session this happened, an NPC was clearly losing the fight and I wanted to get him out of it before the players killed him. So when it came around to the player who was fighting him, before the player rolled, I conceded. There was some disagreement about whether or not this was fair.

Hold on, what?

If your group didn't like the terms of the concession, why did they accept it?

Or did you just concede unilaterally, without asking the group? Because that's not legal at all.

[Wordmaker]

No, initially there was opposition, but it was to the timing of the concession, not the concession itself.

[Sanctaphrax]

Not sure what the problem is, then.

If they don't like concessions that happen at odd times, they can just not accept them.

[Wordmaker]

It was more that a couple of players thought I was breaking the rules by allowing concessions to happen at certain times. That's why I wanted to make sure I was reading the rules right.

[dplanken]

I thought that players couldn't flat-out reject concessions and go to the taking out. Because that would mean that if a monster wants them dead, and they try to concede to stay alive, the monster can just say no. And kill them. So the same courtesy would then apply if the players were winning and the monster wants to concede before he dies.

Or am I missing something here?

[Taran]

It's a negotiation.  I don't think it's fair play for player to reject concessions out-right.  They should negotiate and come to a compromise.

Concessions aren't a "get out of jail free" card.  They still have to hurt but they don't have to hurt in the exact way the enemy wants.

[Wordmaker]

Exactly. Rejecting them just to get away with killing someone is as bad as trying to use them just to avoid something bad happening to you.

[Magicpockets]

It's a negotiation.  I don't think it's fair play for player to reject concessions out-right.  They should negotiate and come to a compromise.

Concessions aren't a "get out of jail free" card.  They still have to hurt but they don't have to hurt in the exact way the enemy wants.

This. So much this.

I remember reading in another thread a post along the lines of "I just read the concession rules, and none of my BBEGs will ever be killed by players again nyahaha..."

Personally, I think using concessions as a form of blanket death immunity that many DMs seem to be so fond of is lame. Preventing premature demise is fine, but cheating someone out of their climax during the final showdown feels kinda wrong. Also, when the players take the time to set up a 40+ shift on an NPC, that concession better be pretty sweet. In my experience, most concessions go along these lines "The BBEG escapes, wounded but with no meaningful permanent harm and his/her evil plan is foiled. For now." This, in my opinion, is not how a concession should be, especially if killing said NPC would achieve the same outcome. It is, essentially, a rip-off, since one side clearly loses more with accepting it. The concession needs to offer something of comparable value.

[Wordmaker]

The one thing I'd add though, is that sometimes, the story gains more by having a recurring villain than by killing off a villain at their first defeat, only to have a new, less meaningful villain show up for the next adventure.

[Mr. Death]

Thematically, maybe the player hit the NPC and knocked him over the side of a cliff or out a window and the PC's can't find him or knocked him unconscious...the problem with the last one is they can always choose to kill him later...which isn't a great concession.

Presumably that would be included in the negotiations--"The villain gets knocked out, and STUFF happens so that you don't kill him right away."

But yeah, I agree, so long as the concession happens before the dice are rolled, it should be kosher.

That said, it's also kosher for the players not to accept a concession if they don't feel it's strong enough--but rejecting a concession can be a risk in itself. I've had it happen where a couple times the players accepted a villain's concession because even though he was wounded, the villain still had enough power to cause serious damage to the PCs if they tried to force a Taken Out.