running consequences

[Streamweaver]

As mentioned in my other post, I'm preping to run a new dresden game and still struggling with how to effectively use some game concepts.  I'm struggling with how Consequences are actually run during encounters.  What is the actual effect other than the description?

Are they a blanket negative shift to skill rolls for as long as it lasts? If so how much?

What about stacking consequences?  If you have a mild and server is the negative shift cumulative?

I'm struggling with how to make consequences have actual in game consequences beyond the description and could use some examples of how GMs are using it.

[Sanctaphrax]

They're aspects. They can be invoked and compelled. A character who creates one gets to tag it once for free. That's it.

[dragoonbuster]

What about stacking consequences?  If you have a mild and server is the negative shift cumulative?

Yes. If you need to absorb lots of stress, take a few consequences at once.

[InFerrumVeritas]

When you don't have the stress to take a hit, you're taken out.  Consequences are a way to avoid this, but they represent an advantage your enemy can use (free tag when they inflict one).  They can also be compelled by the GM, like any other aspect, but given their nature these compels are often more negative than others.

[Taran]

Example:

You and your wizard friend are hired to get info from an Troll.  The troll doesn't like the questions you're asking, so he throws a 500lbs rock at you.

You have a physical stress track of 000

The boulder does 9 stress.  This takes you out since you can only take 3 stress.  The Troll can choose the take out - maybe he kills you.  Maybe he chooses to pin you under the rock. whatever.

Instead of being Taken Out, you choose to soak up 6 of the 9 stress with a Severe "broken Leg"

Edit:  or you could choose to take a minor (scraped) AND a moderate (bruised rib) consequence.  But then the troll gets a tag against each one.

Now your stress track looks like this 00X  ; Severe: "broken Leg"

The ogre can use that consequence to get a +2 to any of his rolls (dodge, attack, intimidate etc...) by tagging the consequence.  No FP required.

Your wizard friend pulls out the nuke and blasts the Troll.  The Troll decides he'd rather run away.

You want to chase him but the GM(or the troll*) says - "Sorry, you have a broken leg.  There's no way you can stop him, he's going to get away"  and offers you a FP for the compel.  You can take the FP and let the troll go, or you can pay off the compel and give chase - maybe you reason you find a big stick to use as a crutch.

*Note, if the troll didn't use the free tag, the troll could offer this same compel and you wouldn't get a FP for accepting, though you'd still have to pay a FP to turn it down. 

[wyvern]

The boulder does 9 stress.  This takes you out since you can only take 3 stress.  The Troll can choose the take out - maybe he kills you.  Maybe he chooses to pin you under the rock. whatever.

Disagree here - this isn't a take out, since the results are still in the realm of player choice.  You can take a severe broken leg (as you mentioned later) and keep fighting (or concede on your turn before the troll can hit you again), or you can negotiate for some other result of similar overall value to having taken a severe; were I a GM, I might offer an alternative of "You're pinned under a rock, and pick up a moderate consequence of bruised ribs - you're out of this fight, and getting you un-pinned will take a significant amount of effort from your allies."  Killing a PC in this instance, however, is completely inappropriate.  Another good option for a concession here would be something like "You dodge, trip, and find a fairly deep hole in the ground the hard way.  You're a bit battered by the fall - minor consequence of "bruised and battered" - and it sounds like there's something else breathing down here... Figure out what you want to do; I'll get back to you once I'm done running the scene with the ogre and the wizard."

Note, if the troll didn't use the free tag, the troll could offer this same compel and you wouldn't get a FP for accepting, though you'd still have to pay a FP to turn it down.

There's one part of this that's just wrong: the player does still get the fate point for accepting.  Doesn't matter that it was a free tag - that only triggers the compel.  Much like if another PC were to try and compel an aspect on your sheet - they only trigger the compel; the GM handles it from there like any other compel.

[Taran]

Disagree here - this isn't a take out, since the results are still in the realm of player choice.  You can take a severe broken leg (as you mentioned later) and keep fighting (or concede on your turn before the troll can hit you again), or you can negotiate for some other result of similar overall value to having taken a severe; were I a GM, I might offer an alternative of "You're pinned under a rock, and pick up a moderate consequence of bruised ribs - you're out of this fight, and getting you un-pinned will take a significant amount of effort from your allies."  Killing a PC in this instance, however, is completely inappropriate. 

If you can't, or, choose not to absorb the stress, it's a take-out.  I'm saying, if he doesn't take a consequence, he's taken out.   You (the gm)may choose to narrate the take out as you've just said(getting pinned under a rock), but What's inappropriate about killing a PC?  If it's appropriate to the situation, it happens.  Maybe the scenario was a set-up and the troll was hired to kill the PC's.  It was an example I made out of my head while I was typing so you can't really say what's appropriate or inappropriate.  I was just illustrating the possible severity of letting an enemy choose your fate.

That's how Take Outs happen.   As a GM I wouldn't kill a character like that but if you're fighting something like a Wendigo that wants to eat you, and your players are waffling between taking a severe or just getting taken out, I'd mention, "you know, that Monster wants to kill you and have you for dinner.  You may want to take the severe and then concede instead of letting it decide your fate."

If the player takes out the troll, he can choose to kill the troll or have it incapacitated because the player is in charge of the narrative.

Another good option for a concession here would be something like "You dodge, trip, and find a fairly deep hole in the ground the hard way.  You're a bit battered by the fall - minor consequence of "bruised and battered" - and it sounds like there's something else breathing down here... Figure out what you want to do; I'll get back to you once I'm done running the scene with the ogre and the wizard."

And this is the concession.  Which you can barter if you choose to take the severe.  But not if you choose to let the troll Take you Out.

There's one part of this that's just wrong: the player does still get the fate point for accepting.  Doesn't matter that it was a free tag - that only triggers the compel.  Much like if another PC were to try and compel an aspect on your sheet - they only trigger the compel; the GM handles it from there like any other compel.

Yeah, I'm honestly not sure about this.  If you use a tag to get a +2 bonus on a consequence, there is no FP's handed over but if you spend a fp to get a +2, you do hand over a FP.  So I'm going by that(but not saying that's the correct interpretation).

Really, it's a hazy line between "the NPC" and the GM.  I think it's more fun to keep FP's moving, so I'm inclined to agree with you.  But I was pretty sure that if no FP is offered up, if none are exchanged.

[wyvern]

It's a concession, not a take-out, because the player still has choices and narrative control.  Please note that I'm explicitly basing this discussion on the point in time where the player is deciding if the fight is worth a severe consequence or not; that is the point where they can negotiate with the GM for what's going to happen if they don't take the consequence.  And negotiating what happens is a concession, not a take-out.

Now, the GM can - as in your wendigo example - say "This thing is going to kill and eat you if you let it", and at that point the PC has to take the consequence.  However, that's explicitly mentioned in the rulebook as upping the stakes from a normal fight, as well as being something that the GM should note at the start of a battle, not partway through.

Alternatively, the player can say "Eh, I trust you to do something interesting with it, and I don't think this fight is worth a severe consequence; I'll just get taken out by this troll."  Which is fine, too, but again, if you as a GM use that to kill a PC... no, I'm going to have to stick with "That's completely inappropriate".

[Mr. Death]

It's a concession, not a take-out, because the player still has choices and narrative control.  Please note that I'm explicitly basing this discussion on the point in time where the player is deciding if the fight is worth a severe consequence or not; that is the point where they can negotiate with the GM for what's going to happen if they don't take the consequence.  And negotiating what happens is a concession, not a take-out.

A concession must, by definition, take place before a roll that would take out the target. If you've been hit for 9 shifts, and are waffling on whether to take the consequences or be taken out, a concession is not on the table. You can only choose at that point whether you take the consequence and keep fighting or be taken out. And if it's the latter, the attacker chooses what happens. Now, should the GM be lenient and negotiate anyway? Maybe. But the player at that point has chosen to accept whatever happens.

Now, the GM can - as in your wendigo example - say "This thing is going to kill and eat you if you let it", and at that point the PC has to take the consequence.  However, that's explicitly mentioned in the rulebook as upping the stakes from a normal fight, as well as being something that the GM should note at the start of a battle, not partway through.

True, if death is on the line, particularly with Sicilians involved, the players should know from the start so they can plan accordingly.

Alternatively, the player can say "Eh, I trust you to do something interesting with it, and I don't think this fight is worth a severe consequence; I'll just get taken out by this troll."  Which is fine, too, but again, if you as a GM use that to kill a PC... no, I'm going to have to stick with "That's completely inappropriate".

Personal preference. Frankly, I agree with you -- but this is how the rules are written.

[Taran]

It's a concession, not a take-out, because the player still has choices and narrative control.  Please note that I'm explicitly basing this discussion on the point in time where the player is deciding if the fight is worth a severe consequence or not; that is the point where they can negotiate with the GM for what's going to happen if they don't take the consequence.  And negotiating what happens is a concession, not a take-out.

Now, the GM can - as in your wendigo example - say "This thing is going to kill and eat you if you let it", and at that point the PC has to take the consequence.  However, that's explicitly mentioned in the rulebook as upping the stakes from a normal fight, as well as being something that the GM should note at the start of a battle, not partway through.

Alternatively, the player can say "Eh, I trust you to do something interesting with it, and I don't think this fight is worth a severe consequence; I'll just get taken out by this troll."  Which is fine, too, but again, if you as a GM use that to kill a PC... no, I'm going to have to stick with "That's completely inappropriate".

I really don't know what to say.  It seems off-topic. 

You're supposed to warn and inform players what the stakes are and you're supposed to do it when the fight starts.  You're supposed to do that with all conflicts, otherwise you don't know why you're having a conflict.  If the stakes are death, then that's what they are.  It's not something you use all the time but, when you do, it's probably something important.

Saying, "this isn't worth a severe" after telling your player his character is going to die seems kind of silly.  That tells me the player isn't invested in his character.  At that point I might ask the player, "are you not enjoying this game?"

I was trying to illustrate how consequences work by using an example, not have a discussion about what's appropriate for a Take Out.

Consequences soak damage.  When you choose to take a consequence, it can be invoked to have interesting things happen.  These interesting things are up to the GM and the table.  And they really should be compelled because that's what gets the FP's flowing and creates lots of cinematic situations.

 (You can use whatever philosophy you want at your own table and you and your players determine what is and isn't appropriate)

True, if death is on the line, particularly with Sicilians involved, the players should know from the start so they can plan accordingly.

Nice.

[wyvern]

Saying, "this isn't worth a severe" after telling your player his character is going to die seems kind of silly.  That tells me the player isn't invested in his character.  At that point I might ask the player, "are you not enjoying this game?"

Um... those were two different examples.  Note how the death-is-on-the-line example is the wendigo, not the troll.  And yeah, if death *is* on the line, then the player should take the consequence, always.  If death isn't on the line, then having the PC die after not taking the consequence is not appropriate.

A concession must, by definition, take place before a roll that would take out the target. If you've been hit for 9 shifts, and are waffling on whether to take the consequences or be taken out, a concession is not on the table. You can only choose at that point whether you take the consequence and keep fighting or be taken out. And if it's the latter, the attacker chooses what happens. Now, should the GM be lenient and negotiate anyway?

But in this context, a nine shift attack is not a take-out, since the PC can keep fighting (albeit at a cost), which means a concession is legal.  And sure, the GM can choose to not negotiate, and force the player to choose between taking consequences or taking what's behind door #2, sight unseen.  As with any concession, it's a negotiation - and if one side chooses not to negotiate, then so be it; take those consequences and move on.

[Mr. Death]

But in this context, a nine shift attack is not a take-out, since the PC can keep fighting (albeit at a cost), which means a concession is legal.  And sure, the GM can choose to not negotiate, and force the player to choose between taking consequences or taking what's behind door #2, sight unseen.  As with any concession, it's a negotiation - and if one side chooses not to negotiate, then so be it; take those consequences and move on.

If you lose a fight because an attack does more stress to you than you have on your stress track, that is a Taken Out. That's the rule of the game. There's no wiggle room here -- that is the definition of the term.

Here's the most important thing you seem to have backward: You don't choose not to take a consequence, you have to actively choose to take a consequence. Consequences are not automatic, and not assumed. The assumption is that you aren't taking a consequence until you actively choose to.

Therefore, yes, a 9-shift hit is a Take Out until and unless the player takes a consequence to avoid it. If a player takes a 9-shift hit, his only choices are to take a consequence and keep going or be Taken Out. He can get clarification from the GM on what being Taken Out means so he makes an informed decision, and short of gagging him there's nothing stopping him from making suggestions, but by the rules, what happens when a character is taken out is entirely the choice of whoever did the taking out.

Per the rules, a Concession can not happen after the attacking roll lands. A Concession is a specific mechanism in the rules that can only happen preemptive of an attack that takes someone out. That's the RAW.

[Taran]

Um... those were two different examples.

Yeah, examples I made up on the spot with absolutely no context so as to illustrate mechanics.

But in this context, a nine shift attack is not a take-out, since the PC can keep fighting (albeit at a cost), which means a concession is legal.  And sure, the GM can choose to not negotiate, and force the player to choose between taking consequences or taking what's behind door #2, sight unseen.  As with any concession, it's a negotiation - and if one side chooses not to negotiate, then so be it; take those consequences and move on.

What Mr. Death said.

I think a GM might say, "o.k, given the choice, this is what the NPC would do this situation: yadda, yadda, yadda.  Do you still want a take out?"  And suggestions from the player may be welcome.

But, once again, it depends on the a person's GMing style and the expectations at your group's table.