Stress, Concessions, and Consequences - I think I've been doing it wrong

[zakmo86]

I think I've been handling stress, concession/being taken out and consequences wrong. So I wanted to turn to the trusted Sages of DFRPG to clarify, correct myself and put this dark part of my life behind me if need be.

If your character runs out of stress boxes, is he taken out? OR if your character runs out of consequences and stress, is that a "taken out?"

Example: my character has two physical stress boxes, a mild consequence and a severe consequence open. If he takes one stress on the first exchange, then two more on the next one, he's taken out because he no longer has physical stress boxes to soak the damage. Right?

Or, same hypothetical character, but: his stress boxes are full, but he still has all his consequences open. He can use his consequences to absorb stress until all his consequences are used.

I know that a smart player would concede at a certain point under normal circumstances, but this is hypothetical.

Thank you for your advice and help.

[Haru]

Your character is taken out only if he has to take stress in excess of his stress track. Which means if you have a stress track of OOOO and get hit by an attack with 5 or more shifts (after defenses, of course), you are taken out. You can, however mitigate such hits by funneling some of that stress into consequences. So in the example above, you get a 5 shift hit but take a mild consequence, you would then take the remaining 3 shifts on your stress track and stay in the fight.

Even if your stress track is full (XXXX) and you take a 5 shift hit, you could take a severe consequence to reduce the hit by 6 shifts (the attack only has 5, so one is to waste, sort of, you don't get to soak up stress you already got), you don't take any more stress, so you are not taken out.

You don't have to take consequences though, if the fight is too hot for you, you can choose to be taken out by such a hit any time.

[Taran]

You are 'taken out' when your stress track cannot or you choose not to absorb the stress you were just dealt.

example

stress boxes: 00

You can take 1 and/or 2 stress and not be taken out.

If you take 3, you are taken out because the stress taken is more than your stress box but you can choose to take a consequence to reduce the amount of stress by the type of consequence taken.

So, when  you take 3 stress, you can choose to take a minor consequence.  The minor soaks up 2 of the 3 stress, leaving you with 1 stress, which can easily be absorbed by your stress track.

and now your stress track looks like this X0; minor consequence: BRUISED

So, you are never required to take a consequence.  Sometimes a player might decide getting taken out is better than taking something like a severe consequence because severes last a long time and, maybe, the opponent's take out will be worth saving the consequence slot (like if it's not life or death, or if it will make for an interesting story to get taken out)

Concessions:

You can concede any time.  But it has to be before the dice are rolled.

Let's say you get attacked for 3 stress.  You take a minor consequence and a single stress.  At that point you can say, "I concede.  I will give up the Amulet of Nole De'Ar and say I'm unconscious"

Or you can say, 'I'm going to stay in the fight, but if the enemy chooses to attack me, I will just concede before he rolls again"

[zakmo86]

I thought it was the other way around. That you were still in the game as long as you had consequences open. I didn't realize that you're taken out if all your stress of a particular type was filled, as long as you still had consequences. Hmmm... My entire life has been a lie...

LOL. Thank you guys for the clarification.

Concessions are the one part that I've always gotten right, it turns out.

[Taran]

I thought it was the other way around. That you were still in the game as long as you had consequences open. I didn't realize that you're taken out if all your stress of a particular type was filled, as long as you still had consequences. Hmmm... My entire life has been a lie...

To clarify:  Not filled....overflowed.  So you can have a stress track like this XXXX and not be taken out.  It's only when you take another point of stress and have no-where to allocate it are you taken out.

In fact, your stress track could be 000X.  If you take 4 stress, you are taken out (assuming you can't or don't want to take a consequence) because there's no place to put the stress on your track.

[wyvern]

I didn't realize that you're taken out if all your stress of a particular type was filled, as long as you still had consequences.

Not quite - the take out comes when you can't absorb a hit with stress.  So if all your physical stress is filled, you can keep going just fine - until the next hit that deals stress.  (A hit that lands exactly and deals no stress won't take you out.  A hit that would deal stress, but can be reduced to zero by taking consequences also won't take you out.)

Also note that I disagree with people on the questions of "concession" versus "take-out" - from my point of view there's nothing wrong with trying to negotiate a concession that starts with "Okay, there's this hit incoming that I'd need to take a moderate consequence to absorb.  I don't think this conflict is worth a moderate consequence.  Can I negotiate an alternative?"  Of course, the table needs to agree that any concession offered under such conditions is at least as bad for the character as a moderate consequence.  An actual take out where the player doesn't have any narrative control left only comes when the player doesn't have a choice anymore - which should be a vanishingly rare state of affairs.  I highly suggest talking with your GM & gaming group over this, though; some people on the forums seem to think that it's fair game for the GM to kill a character if the player opts not to use one of their consequences to stay in a fight - and if you get a GM that has that sort of attitude, well, better to know about it when your character isn't dead.

[dragoonbuster]

Also note that I disagree with people on the questions of "concession" versus "take-out".

That's fine, but it is important to note that's not an opinion or interpretation of rules; you're describing a house rule. The Rules as Written are clear that concessions occur before a dice roll.

I will also note, however, that it is prudent for a GM to offer concessions when they know they're about to throw out large attacks. If your PCs are getting beaten up and then you plan on throwing a Weapon 10 area attack at most of them, then the GM should pick up the dice, make an evil grin and say "This warlock is getting pretty desperate. Who knows what he might do next. Anyone want to concede?" Etc

[wyvern]

That's fine, but it is important to note that's not an opinion or interpretation of rules; you're describing a house rule. The Rules as Written are clear that concessions occur before a dice roll.

I strongly disagree with the claim that this is a house rule.  But we've been over this before and it never goes anywhere good, so I'll offer you this concession: that we can refer to such negotiations as "negotiations" instead of "concessions".

[dragoonbuster]

I strongly disagree with the claim that this is a house rule.  But we've been over this before and it never goes anywhere good, so I'll offer you this concession: that we can refer to such negotiations as "negotiations" instead of "concessions".

Fair enough. Rereading the section, I can see room for interpretation for how it's written. Still disagree, but that's FATE! haha

[Taran]

"Okay, there's this hit incoming that I'd need to take a moderate consequence to absorb.  I don't think this conflict is worth a moderate consequence.  Can I negotiate an alternative?" 

So, I think this is where there needs to be transparency.  If the GM believes this fight is to the death, but the players don't, that's a problem.

If the players spent most of the campaign hunting for, acquiring and protecting the McGuffin and the GM will doesn't tell them that the loss of a conflict will result in all their hard work going down the toilet, that's a problem.

The stakes of a conflict need to be stated clearly at the beginning of a conflict.  If your GM says, 'if this ghoul takes you out, he will eat you and kill you until you are dead.'  Then, obviously, the conflict is worth taking a moderate consequence.

If losing something your party worked so hard to achieve, then obviously, the conflict is worth the consequence.  Unless losing the McGuffin will make a more interesting story - but that should probably be discussed before the conflict begins - not after taking enough stress to get taken out.

When you get taken out, you give up your narrative control but you have some control on the stakes of the conflict before it starts so, in a sense, your loss of control in the case of a take-out is informed.

Edit: to re-iterate:  I'm just saying there has to be an agreement between players and GM as to the stakes so that everyone agrees what's 'worth it' in a given conflict.

[Escher]

A lot of times there seems to be a mind-set that getting taken out -- or even concession -- has to indicate physical incapacitation.  Which it doesn't.  It just means you lose.  You fail the task you were attempting to accomplish.  You lose the object, you fail to save the hostage, the bad guy escapes, you get arrested... it doesn't have to mean you're left in a heap on the floor.

But I'm not disagreeing with Taran -- yes, the GM needs to communicate when the results of a fight are going to be death.  It even says so in the book.  At the same time I get frustrated with that mind-set that some GMs have where every fight is basically to the death.  Just because a troll probably wants to eat me, doesn't mean getting taken out by him should automatically mean he does.  It's that thing where every fight needs to have a clearly defined "win condition", and "the other side are all dead" should be very rare.  Even if somebody's trying to kill you, your death is usually only a means to an end.

That's fine, but it is important to note that's not an opinion or interpretation of rules; you're describing a house rule. The Rules as Written are clear that concessions occur before a dice roll.
...If your PCs are getting beaten up and then you plan on throwing a Weapon 10 area attack at most of them, then the GM should pick up the dice, make an evil grin and say "This warlock is getting pretty desperate. Who knows what he might do next. Anyone want to concede?" Etc

Well, it says at the latest, you concede before a dice roll.  You can concede on your turn, or after your big gun fails, or interrupting the bad guy before he does his thing.

That last one is the big one, though.  Some GMs play this game with the players where they won't announce the enemy's action before rolling.  "Okay, so it's the warlock's turn now.  Hmmm... okay." <marks on sheet> <rolls>  "The warlock lifts his hands and sends a wall of black magic rushing towards you, you all take seven stress!"

There's no opportunity to do what the book says and interrupt the action before the dice hit the table; when exactly was I supposed to concede in there?

A better option is to stop trying to surprise the players, and tell a story.  "The warlock lifts his hands and starts gathering black energy.  He throws his arms forward and cries 'NECROSIS!'" <picks up dice> "Okay, this is a weapon 5 spell, so--"    "Whoa!  No way!  I'm already in bad shape, I concede!"

[Taran]

A lot of times there seems to be a mind-set that getting taken out -- or even concession -- has to indicate physical incapacitation.  Which it doesn't.  It just means you lose.  You fail the task you were attempting to accomplish.  You lose the object, you fail to save the hostage, the bad guy escapes, you get arrested... it doesn't have to mean you're left in a heap on the floor.

That's why I wrote this:

If the players spent most of the campaign hunting for, acquiring and protecting the McGuffin and the GM will doesn't tell them that the loss of a conflict will result in all their hard work going down the toilet, that's a problem.

The end result of the take-out isn't death, it's the loss of something important.

[Mr. Death]

Also note that I disagree with people on the questions of "concession" versus "take-out" - from my point of view there's nothing wrong with trying to negotiate a concession that starts with "Okay, there's this hit incoming that I'd need to take a moderate consequence to absorb.  I don't think this conflict is worth a moderate consequence.  Can I negotiate an alternative?"

The book's explicit on this point -- a concession has to happen before dice are rolled. What you have is a houserule. A valid houserule for your group, certainly, but explicitly and directly against the rules as written all the same.

To the OP, the important thing to remember is the stress track is not a health bar. You can be taken out when it's completely empty, and you can keep fighting even with it completely filled and all consequences taken up (I've had one player finish more than one scenario in exactly that state, for instance). 'Taken-out' works on a hit-by-hit basis -- the question is always, "Can I/do I want to absorb this hit?"

[Haru]

The book's explicit on this point -- a concession has to happen before dice are rolled. What you have is a houserule. A valid houserule for your group, certainly, but explicitly and directly against the rules as written all the same.

To me, it doesn't sound all that much like a houserule and more like negotiating the taken out result. Which is absolutely ok, I think. If the GM imposes a taken out result that's not going to be any fun to anyone, speaking up and talking about it is certainly a good idea. Now obviously a taken out result should suck for the character, which will end up sucking for the player as well, most of the time, but there is definitely some wiggle room that can be explored.

[zakmo86]

Thanks everyone. So I have been doing it right. As long as someone is willing/is able to take stress or can soak incoming stress by taking consequences, a character is still in the game. All his stress can be full, as long as he has consequences, he isn't taken out. It isn't until at least one point of stress "gets through" stress boxes and consequences that a character is taken out. Though a character can concede before that happens.