ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Tsunami on June 20, 2010, 06:03:19 PM
-
See the topic.
Shifts achieved in an attack roll (be it mundane or through evocation or whatever) can be translated into stress.
The question now is if either
a) They always and automatically translate into stress
Or
b) I can choose if they do
We've been talking it over... and over... and over... we just can't get to a conclusion *g*
I am certain that it is option b).
Our GM says it's option a)
Our GM's argument is that shifts represent uncertainty. And so they should be out of the players control.
My argument is that shifts represent the attackers skill and control in directing his attack, and therefore one should be able but not forced to use them to increase stress.
I'd like to see what the community thinks.
Also, if there actually is a quotable rule in the Books that would lay that argument to rest... PLEASE LET ME KNOW.... PLEAAASE. ;D
-
I'm pretty sure its option a.)
(If this is still about magic attacks, just call it a special weapon attack at weapon: 0 and be done with it, no need to worry about the shifts killing him)
-
I'd be inclined toward option B, but it wouldn't necessarily keep you from, say, killing someone accidentally when you take them out.
-
Let the debate begin! :P
-
I'm pretty sure its option a.)
(If this is still about magic attacks, just call it a special weapon attack at weapon: 0 and be done with it, no need to worry about the shifts killing him)
It's about all forms of attacks.
I'd be inclined toward option B, but it wouldn't necessarily keep you from, say, killing someone accidentally when you take them out.
Of course not, to much damage is to much damage.
It's about being able to control how much damage you dish out. Not about the result of that damage.
-
Maybe, but if so, those shifts are lost and cannot be used for anything else (No making an attack, getting enough to cause 1 shift of damage, and then insisting that the rest of your shifts should allow you to make a second action)
-
Yeah, what GoldenH said. You want o do less damage? More power to you.
-
I've always allowed players to declare before they roll the attack that they are trying to do little damage. Then, if they hit, they can state how much of the possible damage is actually applied. I decided before my current campaign started that I would continue to allow this since it doesn't seem to break anything.
-
Also, if there actually is a quotable rule in the Books that would lay that argument to rest... PLEASE LET ME KNOW.... PLEAAASE. ;D
By the rules; stress doesn't do anything you don't want it to do, it doesn't matter if that stress comes from a weapon or from effect.
]If the damage exceeds the character's 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.
So if you don't want your target to die, he doesn't die. As simple as that, because there are very few things you can do that would preclude any chance of survival and that's all the rule requires; that the opponent could possibly survive.
If you have a GM who wants to house rule things to screw over wizards in his game, that's his choice, but I've got better things to do than play a game with a GM who thinks he can "win" the game by having a a wizard kill a mortal through GM fiat or simple trickery. Simple like having a wizard be required to stop a bunch of very tough opponents, one of which is a regular human who has been altered by magic to look like one of those opponents. "ZAP - Oops, that's a lawbreaker stunt for you...what's that? You only had one refresh left? Guess you're screwed, hahaha."
-
Actually, there IS an example in YS, pages 214-215.
In the example given, it's perfectly possible to use the extra shifts from an attack on some other, non-attack action.
-
If you take them out, yes, if you could have done more damage, no, because that stress has a use, even if that use is in influencing wether the enemy eats a consequence or not.
-
If you have a GM who wants to house rule things to screw over wizards in his game, that's his choice, but I've got better things to do than play a game with a GM who thinks he can "win" the game by having a a wizard kill a mortal through GM fiat or simple trickery. Simple like having a wizard be required to stop a bunch of very tough opponents, one of which is a regular human who has been altered by magic to look like one of those opponents. "ZAP - Oops, that's a lawbreaker stunt for you...what's that? You only had one refresh left? Guess you're screwed, hahaha."
I think you need to assume good faith on the part of us who believe that story comes first. That means that for some people, story beats players that try to "win" the game by raining Armageddon on every enemy they face without having to deal with the seven laws.
-
I would tend to side with the GM and go with option A. While it's great that they mean to control their actions and be mindful of the outcomes, the base fact is that evocation is a dangerous, wild beast and is quite difficult to control. If you throw destructive energy at your opponent, you intend to do them harm. Just like a gun; you don't aim at something you don't intend to kill. The best marksman in the world couldn't make every shot non-lethal. Shoot someone in the leg, they can still die.
On the other hand, I agree that casters shouldn't be threatened with the nerf (read: lawbreaker) bat every time they go to cast something. I believe that the GM should be fairly tolerant the matter of magically killing a mortal by at the very least giving the player fair warning. If you want to shut someone down with magic, blocks and maneuvers are great!
Simple like having a wizard be required to stop a bunch of very tough opponents, one of which is a regular human who has been altered by magic to look like one of those opponents. "ZAP - Oops, that's a lawbreaker stunt for you...what's that? You only had one refresh left? Guess you're screwed, hahaha."
I think this would be a perfectly acceptable plot hook IF and only IF the GM gives ample opportunity and clues to discover the treachery. Otherwise this seems like something a particularly devious and in-the-know enemy might do. I agree with you in that it's a bad idea to pull on a low refresh player as you don't want to Hand-of-god-GM them to death. But if your player is reckless enough, it could be fun to lead them into a setup where a warden witnesses what is apparently a lawbreaker in action :D
-
Yeah, if you want to pull punches, reduce your effort, not your shifts. In other words, I'd let the character go with a +2 rather than the +5 listed on his sheet. He's not going for the kill.
But once the dice are out, it's done. You tried to pull your punch and killed the guy anyway.
-
The most logical solution is to include the shifts in the roll but to grant greater latitude to wizard in determining the taken out result for damage done by control shifts as opposed to weapons ratings.
While I am sympathetic to the viewpoint that high powered weapons rating should be limited before they become lethal, it does not make sense to punish a character for doing a good job controlling their evocation. Such a situation strikes me as creating a gotcha situation designed to deal with the fact that some GMs do not like wizard PCs principal combat power throwing a punch that puts it on par with the combined speed, strength, etc. powers other PCs get.
In designing the rules for the game I am GMing, I keep running into the same problem developing one of these house rules: If one of my PCs brings a low yield attack but has high discipline and gets lucky, why should they be punished for exercising excessive ccontrol over their power? The whole point of control is that it well controls the use of power. Otherwise, it is impossible for a player to effectively play a spell caster if they cannot calculate a low yield attack setting because they may roll too well (or the opponent rolls badly)
The argument is made that such screwing of evocators is necessary to maintain story cohesion, but it leads to the result that Harry Dresden is better able to safely incapacitate an opponent than would Elaine Mallory who, by the rules, gives up a an extra mild consequence, and suffers a reduction in her spell casting power, specifically to have the ability to exercise absolute control over her spells. This makes no sense and justifies a simple rule that, below a certain weapon rating (I would say 2-3), the rules in the book should be followed with regards to taking out an opponent even if one of these house rules is imposed.
-
I agree with several that have posted. There has to be a line.
Question: The Bag Guy in the scene has been stabbed by the swordsman in the group, shot twice by the marksman, he is looking pretty bad, but is still standing.
Does the Wizard throw a minor bit of magic to "knock him out", because he is worried about killing him?
or
Does the wizard unload with max force to be sure the guy is finished off, since (according to the rules) he doesn't have to worry about killing him?
Part of the thrill in the books I enjoy is the temptation of power that magic gives. You have to use it responsibly, you cant use it to solve every problem, and if you do over use it, or use it to solve problems it shouldn't be used for bad things happen to you.
Ultimately, its up to each group, each player. But I would like to see both GM and PC on the edge of the seat when using magic to hurt someone. Yeah its cool as heck to throw fireballs and lightning blasts around at a whim. But what happens when the building catches on fire, and the power grid of the city block shorts out. How many disruptions are going to occur before the over zealous wizard(s) are hunted by the authorities as terrorists, and the wardens as rogue warlocks?
So start with B but if the players abuse it, then switch it to A. They will have to learn to pull the punches so you can switch back to B. Perhaps there is no clear defined answer on this. But abuse is a two way street. Player and GM should share the responsibility.
-
I agree with several that have posted. There has to be a line.
Question: The Bag Guy in the scene has been stabbed by the swordsman in the group, shot twice by the marksman, he is looking pretty bad, but is still standing.
Does the Wizard throw a minor bit of magic to "knock him out", because he is worried about killing him?
or
Does the wizard unload with max force to be sure the guy is finished off, since (according to the rules) he doesn't have to worry about killing him?
Part of the thrill in the books I enjoy is the temptation of power that magic gives. You have to use it responsibly, you cant use it to solve every problem, and if you do over use it, or use it to solve problems it shouldn't be used for bad things happen to you.
Ultimately, its up to each group, each player. But I would like to see both GM and PC on the edge of the seat when using magic to hurt someone. Yeah its cool as heck to throw fireballs and lightning blasts around at a whim. But what happens when the building catches on fire, and the power grid of the city block shorts out. How many disruptions are going to occur before the over zealous wizard(s) are hunted by the authorities as terrorists, and the wardens as rogue warlocks?
So start with B but if the players abuse it, then switch it to A. They will have to learn to pull the punches so you can switch back to B. Perhaps there is no clear defined answer on this. But abuse is a two way street. Player and GM should share the responsibility.
This I think is a reasonable compromise.
And someone mentioned the application of fist earlier (which I admit did not occur to me at my earlier post) and it leads me to consider the type of attack. You punch someone, you're a lot less likely to kill them if you shoot them. Likewise if you push someone around with a force or air attack you're a lot less likely to kill them as with say, a ball of fire or a bolt of lightning. Keep in mind that in the books Harry is extremely careful when using his magic against mortals. He pretty much always uses force or wind and usually spends it to push them along or discourage their actions, creating a block or aspect of some sort (wall of wind anyone?).
-
So start with B but if the players abuse it, then switch it to A. They will have to learn to pull the punches so you can switch back to B. Perhaps there is no clear defined answer on this. But abuse is a two way street. Player and GM should share the responsibility.
I guess I am confused. The OP specifically asked about how to deal with characters who get a lot of shifts on their control roll, not their weapon rating. I do not see how those can be abused in your scenario where an evocator has only used a low yield attack but gotten a bonanza of shifts because they controlled their power very well. While I see your point on the weapon rating issue, I do not see how highly controlling your power is a character failing or abuse of the rules. If anything, it seems like the opposite and something the WC would encourage.
Now, if you want to discuss the consequences of fallout from bringing more power than the character can handle, that is a completely different story. ;D
-
I think the ideal way to handle this is through story, if the wizard isn't trying to kill his target and controlled the spell well then he should be able to specify the take out conditions. If it's an obviously lethal spell then the GM should warn the caster (just an 'are you sure?' should do) and then force a more serious take out.
Of course, if you have players or a GM that isn't able to deal with this through story and need a rule, I would say that specifying a lower shift spell than you can normally control should count as pulling punches (the weapon value should be at most 2 or 3, if the caster has conviction 5 but only casts a weapon:4 spell, it's still pretty lethal). Of course a weak caster (conviction 2 or 3) won't be able to pull their punches much in this case, but then if they are casting spells close to their power limits, that suggests a certain lack of control anyway.
-
I think you need to assume good faith on the part of us who believe that story comes first. That means that for some people, story beats players that try to "win" the game by raining Armageddon on every enemy they face without having to deal with the seven laws.
We're talking about a game system where a man can drop a grenade at his feet, just stand there until it goes off and one scene later he's perfectly fine.
Would you let a player who takes someone out with a grenade say "Ok, he gets blown a few feet into a wall, he's got a mild concussion and some minor cuts and is out cold"? It's certainly within the realm of reason because it happens in real life all the time.
What is so fundamentally different about magic that the player loses his narrative power if he does the exact same thing with a Strength 4 spell? What is so wrong about letting the winner of a conflict decide what happens to the loser in a storytelling game?
-
Nothing is wrong with that, if that is really how you want to play the game. You want to play the monster killing mercenary waster without a conscience? Fine, have fun.
What is so wrong with wanting to play a game where decisions actually matter, and people have to deal with the consequences of their actions (yes, even completely successful actions)? You assume that just because I don't want to play the type of game you do, that I'm just trying to find a reason to hurt wizards. Please assume good faith.
Now, yes, magic attacks shouldn't be treated differently than mundane attacks, as far as determining the reasonable outcome of an event goes. So if someone is routinely dropping grenades, I expect those grenades to eventually kill someone, like it or not. They won't have to deal with lawbreaker stunts, but they will certainly have to deal with law enforcement. And this is for the same reason that wizards should have to worry about killing people with massive power evocations. Because it makes the game fun. Because it brings out thematic issues of how people use the power they have, and how they must resist the temptation to abuse that power.
-
See, I'd do the exact same thing with either of those situations: Offer the player a Compel for the victim to die. If they reject it, it costs them a Fate Point, if they accept, the victim dies. Thus such behavior is discouraged unless you want to kill people.
Realism does have a place in the game. Now, if the magic user is explicitly doing something non-lethal (like a lightning taser), that's a different matter, but blasts of flame have to have a real chance of killing people for suspension of disbelief not to be broken.
-
We're talking about a game system where a man can drop a grenade at his feet, just stand there until it goes off and one scene later he's perfectly fine.
Would you let a player who takes someone out with a grenade say "Ok, he gets blown a few feet into a wall, he's got a mild concussion and some minor cuts and is out cold"? It's certainly within the realm of reason because it happens in real life all the time.
What is so fundamentally different about magic that the player loses his narrative power if he does the exact same thing with a Strength 4 spell? What is so wrong about letting the winner of a conflict decide what happens to the loser in a storytelling game?
I think it really depends on intent. If a player is using the 'grenade' (magic or otherwise) in a way that fits the story for it to be non-lethal then I'd allow it. However, if the take-out rules are being abused to dodge an important part of the game (lawbreaking, wardens etc) then there should be consequences for the player. You can't throw around lethal spells whilst dodging all the consequences.
On the 'control' roll, perhaps we are being too literal. As with everything else in this game, the numbers have to be turned in to descriptions and this can be done lots of ways. Sometimes a +4 control roll might literally be a well-controlled spell, it could also be a result of tapping hidden reserves of inner strength or concentrating the spell on an opponents weak spot (on purpose or not).
-
We're talking about a game system where a man can drop a grenade at his feet, just stand there until it goes off and one scene later he's perfectly fine.
Strictly looking at the rules for weapons, yes that seems more or less correct (assuming a good endurance). But I think the weapon ratings are rather vague and done so by design, allowing for sufficient skills to make up the damage as well as our own views on how damaging we should make something. A person pulling this in my games (without an applicable toughness) would most likely be out and out dead, if not working off some
big time consequences.
Would you let a player who takes someone out with a grenade say "Ok, he gets blown a few feet into a wall, he's got a mild concussion and some minor cuts and is out cold"? It's certainly within the realm of reason because it happens in real life all the time.
Depends on the type of munition really. Fragmentation devices don't work that way, for example. You could argue that Concussion/stun ones do. The point I'm trying to make is that the outcome of a taken-out has to more or less be in proportion to the type of attack.
Take someone out by hitting them with a car and it's difficult to see how you could dumb down the attack to be less lethal (thus ignoring extra shifts). Maybe by hitting the breaks at the last second or trying to "clip" them? Either way you're still hitting them with a good deal of mass. I wouldn't expect them to get out of it without a number of consequences.
EDIT:
See, I'd do the exact same thing with either of those situations: Offer the player a Compel for the victim to die. If they reject it, it costs them a Fate Point, if they accept, the victim dies. Thus such behavior is discouraged unless you want to kill people.
Ah yea... didn't think of that. Seems a good way to balance both perspectives.
On the 'control' roll, perhaps we are being too literal. As with everything else in this game, the numbers have to be turned in to descriptions and this can be done lots of ways. Sometimes a +4 control roll might literally be a well-controlled spell, it could also be a result of tapping hidden reserves of inner strength or concentrating the spell on an opponents weak spot (on purpose or not).
Rereading the evocation rules I think we may be forgetting that the discipline rolls is representative of two separate rolls (functions). One to control and shape the power, and one to direct/aim it. We do one for convenience. Which should the extra shift damage apply from? I would think the aim roll. So the initial control roll to account for the weapon rating, and the targeting roll to apply extra shifts of damage OR declare that after a hit those shifts are ignored to represent an intentional glancing blow?
-
I guess I am confused. The OP specifically asked about how to deal with characters who get a lot of shifts on their control roll, not their weapon rating. I do not see how those can be abused in your scenario where an evocator has only used a low yield attack but gotten a bonanza of shifts because they controlled their power very well. While I see your point on the weapon rating issue, I do not see how highly controlling your power is a character failing or abuse of the rules. If anything, it seems like the opposite and something the WC would encourage.
Let me help your confusion. If you notice the OP gave two options A and B. I suggested starting with B, gives everyone the most flexibility. But if the players kept abusing HIGH control, the GM could switch it to A.
How can they abuse it? Harry always mentions the fact that he can't control his spells that well. Which is why he needs a focus. Therefore, he has to amp up the Weapon Level of the Spell and hope he hits. Morgan has High control, so he doesn't need to put that much into the spell to get the same effect. Players with HIGH Control, will soon understand they only need to throw low weapon level spells to achieve the same thing as a LOW control and High Damage character can.
I agree with Luminos on his viewpoint. Either way it boils down to one thing. How the GM wants to handle it. Everyone plays a different game. Everyone wants different things. And in the end, it just a means for people to sit around a table, or computer and have fun. Just because some disagrees with your view point doesn't mean you or they are wrong.
The rules are more like guidelines really. . .
-
It seems to me that this whole thing could be solved with a quick conversation at the game table.
If someone doesn't like the idea of lightning bolts and hand grenades Taking Out people in consistently non-lethal ways, they should bring it up to the group. Point out that it bugs them and that they'd like to see deadly results from deadly weapons more often. Figure out what the consensus is and then go from there to build a fun game.
There's no reason to set invisible lines that players can cross and have deadly things they didn't expect happen. Those sort of traps create frustration. Likewise, there's no reason for people to sit and stew and do nothing when something about the game is bothersome to them.
FATE is all sorts of flexible on what it lets you get away with narratively when the mechanics output a given result. If you know what your group is good with, and when they know what you're good with, there's far less worry about this sort of thing ruining anyone's time.
-
Ok, everybody has returned to Magical Attacks... that's not what this thread was supposed to be focused upon.
Also, it's not about killing your target or not.
It's actually about a basic part of the system.
It applies to evocation attacks as much as it does to lets say attacks made with fists.
The way I see it, forcing shifts onto the attack basically means that you always hit with all the force you can muster.
A High fists Character is no longer able to throw a lighter punch, a high weapons character always goes for the strike to the heart, a skilled gunman always goes for the killing shot, and a highly trained evocator always goes for maximum destruction.
For me that just doesn't make sense. So I'm of the opinion that Stress from shifts should be optional. For all types of attacks.
YS 200
If the attacker wins the roll, the shifts he acquires translate into a stress value he can inflict on the defender.
"Can" being the important word here. He can inflict, but does not have to.
So, please lets stay on the question of how shifts are intended to be handled by the system.
Not how stress values are supposed to be handled, applied or interpreted by the players and the GM.
-
I interpret the rule to be that shifts in an attack always go towards damage. I can see where others might want to make that optional, and the exact wording leaves room to do so. Here is my interpretation of what shifts mean: Shifts do not represent skill. Your skill value represents skill. What they do represent is the effectiveness of whatever it is that you originally set out to do. In investigations, this would be represented by finding an extra piece of evidence, if you have enough extra shifts. In throwing a punch, this would represent extra effectiveness in hurting your opponent. It does not represent the ability to precisely get the end result you are aiming for, just the intermediate result.
There are, I think, interesting ways to handle situations where you don't want to let the uncertainty of the dice place your end goal out of reach, but trying to completely eliminate risk in both directions is a bit futile. One interesting trick you might experiment with is a 'called shot' maneuver against an opponent, so that when you tag that aspect next exchange, you have every right to demand the effect of the attack be localized against the spot you called it on. Perhaps another trick, and one that might require GM consent, is to declare you are intentionally pulling your punches and therefore rolling with an attack skill value lower than what is on your sheet. This allows you to estimate safe attacks without taking out the randomness of the dice.
Or get the GM to agree to your interpretation. But even if he doesn't, there are still definite options for how to play a character that wants to be cautious about attacks.
-
Nothing is wrong with that, if that is really how you want to play the game. You want to play the monster killing mercenary waster without a conscience? Fine, have fun.
What is so wrong with wanting to play a game where decisions actually matter, and people have to deal with the consequences of their actions (yes, even completely successful actions)? You assume that just because I don't want to play the type of game you do, that I'm just trying to find a reason to hurt wizards. Please assume good faith.
You show bad faith to the person you disagree with and demand good faith of him? :o
You could show good faith first by assuming that such players are not "monster killing mercenary waster without a conscience".
-
Ok, everybody has returned to Magical Attacks... that's not what this thread was supposed to be focused upon.
Also, it's not about killing your target or not.
It's actually about a basic part of the system.
It applies to evocation attacks as much as it does to lets say attacks made with fists.
The way I see it, forcing shifts onto the attack basically means that you always hit with all the force you can muster.
A High fists Character is no longer able to throw a lighter punch, a high weapons character always goes for the strike to the heart, a skilled gunman always goes for the killing shot, and a highly trained evocator always goes for maximum destruction.
Not so. Stress != damage. A high weapons character could just be doing fancy moves, and backing their opponent into a corner. A skilled gunman might just be shooting where the target was about to be, thus discouraging them from moving. In either case, the taken out result is they surrender, since they know they are outclasses and out gunned.
The ghoul's slash that just missed Dresden's face? That's stress. When Harry got shot, that's a consequence. Per YS197, ". Each party accumulates gradual success, affecting their opponents in a momentary (resulting in stress) or lasting (resulting in a consequence) way."
To address the OP, it's really up to the table to decide. If more of the table agree it's B, then so be it. If more people agree with the GM, than it's A.
I'd say sit down and talk it out with your group.
-EF
-
Not so. Stress != damage. A high weapons character could just be doing fancy moves, and backing their opponent into a corner. A skilled gunman might just be shooting where the target was about to be, thus discouraging them from moving. In either case, the taken out result is they surrender, since they know they are outclasses and out gunned.
The ghoul's slash that just missed Dresden's face? That's stress. When Harry got shot, that's a consequence. Per YS197, ". Each party accumulates gradual success, affecting their opponents in a momentary (resulting in stress) or lasting (resulting in a consequence) way."
To address the OP, it's really up to the table to decide. If more of the table agree it's B, then so be it. If more people agree with the GM, than it's A.
I'd say sit down and talk it out with your group.
-EF
Gotta disagree here. Maybe I'm misremembering, but I'm pretty sure that a slash 'narrowly missing' someone's face would not count as stress. I was under the impression that stress was damage.
I find myself torn in this conflict. On the one hand, it seems unfair to reward a good roll with such a potentially bad result. On the other, it is unrealistic to suppose that someone can shoot and throw fireballs at people with the knowledge that they will never, ever kill someone unless they don't want to.
One potential idea for a homebrew solution is to impose some sort of 'kill-line.' If someone is taken out with physical stress, but by under a certain margin (less than double their max stress, maybe?) the player can choose whether they die or are knocked unconscious or what have you. If the stress exceeds that margin, though...death may ensue.
Of course, that only answers the specific issue of how to deal with attacks that can kill people. There is still the issue of what to do with extra stress. It seems like Overflow (YS, 213-214) could help deal with this. It states that if a player accidentally (this specifically does not apply when such a high number has been deliberately achieved with fate points) gets a large surplus of success, higher than they need to complete the task they declared, they can devote the surplus shifts of success to a second, not directly offensive action. The example it gives is Michael defeating a demon with a six shift attack when he only needs three. He uses three as surplus and uses it to sprint out of the collapsing temple.
Now, the obvious issue of how exactly Michael's player would know exactly how much stress he needed to take out the demon, this would seem to answer some of our questions, wouldn't it?
-
Gotta disagree here. Maybe I'm misremembering, but I'm pretty sure that a slash 'narrowly missing' someone's face would not count as stress. I was under the impression that stress was damage.
Nope. From YS201:
The best way to look at stress is that it’s the closest of close calls. That left hook might not take your character out of the fight, but his knees wobble a bit. Your character might have parried that sword blow, but he’s losing momentum and getting tired. That bullet might not have hit your character, but he’s agitated, and one of these times he just isn’t going to be able to hit the deck quickly enough. This outlook can help you represent stress in the face of different sources of harm.
I find myself torn in this conflict. On the one hand, it seems unfair to reward a good roll with such a potentially bad result. On the other, it is unrealistic to suppose that someone can shoot and throw fireballs at people with the knowledge that they will never, ever kill someone unless they don't want to.
There's one very, very important distinction people are forgetting here: The character does not know they will never, ever kill someone unless they don't want to. The player knows that the character will not kill anyone unless the player wants that to happen. Characters in the game should be cautious about using lethal force; the fact that the player gets to choose whether that force turns out to be lethal or not shouldn't change the character's behavior, just like they should be cautious about rushing headlong into life-or-death situations even though the player knows that the worst outcome will be a crumpled character sheet tossed in the trash and a new PC joining the group later.
One potential idea for a homebrew solution is to impose some sort of 'kill-line.' If someone is taken out with physical stress, but by under a certain margin (less than double their max stress, maybe?) the player can choose whether they die or are knocked unconscious or what have you. If the stress exceeds that margin, though...death may ensue.
That seems heavy-handed and arbitrary when compared to the tools a GM already has to make trigger-happy players cautious about employing excessive force. Off the top of my head:
1) Taken Out negotiations: "Not immediately dead" is not the same as "knocked out like bad guys in an episode of The A-Team." The GM is well within his rights to say "okay, he's not dead, but he's critically injured and will spend months in the hospital and won't be any help to you on this case for at least a couple of weeks."
2) Aspect compels: Either character aspects that hint at bloodthirstiness/lack of control or aspects on the taken out guy--hell, even his consequences could work ("I dunno, he took a Sucking Chest Wound on that last shot; you're not sure he's going to make it.")
3) Concession: Remember, it's not the character who decides the result, it's the player (or the GM). If players are really going overboard slinging deadly weapons around and declaring that their taken out victims are just downed with flesh wounds, have them start conceding and offering death as the terms.
Of course, that only answers the specific issue of how to deal with attacks that can kill people. There is still the issue of what to do with extra stress. It seems like Overflow (YS, 213-214) could help deal with this. It states that if a player accidentally (this specifically does not apply when such a high number has been deliberately achieved with fate points) gets a large surplus of success, higher than they need to complete the task they declared, they can devote the surplus shifts of success to a second, not directly offensive action. The example it gives is Michael defeating a demon with a six shift attack when he only needs three. He uses three as surplus and uses it to sprint out of the collapsing temple.
Given that the goal of conflicts is to get the other guy to concede or be taken out, and given that those terms are whatever you define them to be, I see no reason to make death a result of the quantity of stress inflicted and thus see no reason why you'd ever want to minimize stress inflicted. If you're trying to capture a bad guy for questioning, describe your attacks accordingly--a good GM will make the terms of any concessions or consequences reflect that. Sparring with your pal? Declare that that's your intention and set the terms of a take-out or concession as "I acknowledge that you won the match" and concede after minor consequences.
Now, the obvious issue of how exactly Michael's player would know exactly how much stress he needed to take out the demon, this would seem to answer some of our questions, wouldn't it?
Presumably after the attack landed the GM said "you've got three extra shifts from that take-out. Want to do anything with them?
-
Hey, I'm a wizard that does a weapons-10, 4-zone megablast to pancake that building. Can I say that everybody inside only gets knocked out? Even better, can I say that all the evil vampires get flattened while the physically weaker and already abused hostages survive?
Narrating results has to make sense.
-
The example it gives is Michael defeating a demon with a six shift attack when he only needs three. He uses three as surplus and uses it to sprint out of the collapsing temple.
Remember that the numbers can be narrated in a number of ways, it could be one attack dealing 6 stress, two attacks causing 3 stress, four attacks of 1 stress with a final 2 stress blow etc. If the demon has been taken out, Michael probably wouldn't keep swinging his sword at the dead body (though some other characters might).
In the same way, if my character uses fists to deal 8 shifts of stress to a thug on a lucky roll, it wasn't one punch that landed with all the force of a grenade, it was a cleverly coordinated flurry of blows and if the target KO's after 2 shifts my character won't pound away at the unconscious body if he hadn't planned to kill the guy. Of course, if there was good reason for killing him, the GM might compel a suitable aspect that makes me want to kill him, or if I'd been warned against attacking the character, the GM could rule the target's neck broke in the fall or whatever.
It's all about story really, you can't knock a guy out with a knife unless you are attacking with the hilt only, in which case you might lose your knife related stunt or even take a -4 penalty for it being an improvised weapon. Similarly, while people have walked away from grenades with concussions, you can't really throw grenades in such a way that it guarantees a non-lethal result.
-
I might have found a solution to the problem that I'd like to hear your take on. It came to me just half an hour ago and it's not fully thought through, nor is it tested or anything. Basically the problem is that to many shifts may be created to merit lets say a incapacitating take out, yes?
As a matter of fact there are rules about how to handle extra shifts. Take a look at YW 312 and the extra shifts section. I think it could apply. It even would be an elegant way to represent the difficulty of getting to a takeout through application of raw force. To get to an KO take out through an Attack Action, the player might have to generate more shifts on his attack roll, as it is generally more difficult to knock somebody out then crack some bones. If he fails to reach the required level of shifts, then he fails in pulling of the desired effect.
I don't know if I managed to communicate the idea correctly so I'll try an example:
William the Vampire Slayer wants to knock out a mook who is guarding the warehouse he'd like to get in quietly. Will is a tough guy with inhuman strength and stalks up to his target without a problem. His player Jon declares that he only wants to knock out the guy with an incapacitating blow to the neck. The GM decides that this is probably more difficult then just hiting him with all the force Will could muster and that he might seriously hurt the guy if he isn't really careful, meaning, that he has to generate at least three extra shifts to pull the attack of in this way. The GM also declares that, if the extra shift's aren't created through the attack roll, then the take out is likely not to be as desired.
Jon is fine with that and rolls weapons, which Will has on good, using a rusty pipe he found (Weapon:1). The roll is neither good nor bad 0 + - 0. The mook rolls his defense with endurance or athletics (both only average) and gets a bad result - - - +. His roll is poor -1. The required extra shifts are generated: Good vs Poor = 5. The KO is effective.
I'm pretty sure you guys can come up with a negative example yourself...
If we use the extra shifts rules this way, we can basically get all we'd like to have. A high attack skill will make it pretty sure that you can control your power. There is still the possibility that it might go wrong, yet it is slight enough to make attacking this way a valid choice. It goes without saying that the narration of the attack and it's outcome still have to be within the realm of reason, same as that the GM has always the final word, especially on how many extra shifts have to be generated by the attack.
Note that it only gets decided by the extra shifts that are generated by the comparison of Offense and Defense Roll. This is not yet stress, where weapons or inhuman strength apply. This is only about Skill.
I hope that I was able to communicate the idea. As you guys perhaps know by now, I'm not native to this language ;).
-
Your English is great Papa Gruff, better than many native speakers' attempts.
The idea is also pretty great, I like that it takes more control to achieve a non-lethal take out but how do you determine how much it takes to knock someone out? Is it three additional shifts like a manoeuvre? Or is it +1 for difficulty and +2 for trying to create a mild consequence? Does it take in to account the targets stress track already?
-
The idea is also pretty great, I like that it takes more control to achieve a non-lethal take out but how do you determine how much it takes to knock someone out? Is it three additional shifts like a manoeuvre? Or is it +1 for difficulty and +2 for trying to create a mild consequence? Does it take in to account the targets stress track already?
I'd say it's up to the GM to decide together with the group how many shifts are appropriate for the given action. Still a lot should be taken into account, for example the kind of weapon that gets used (if any), or the general circumstances that are given in the scene. Three shifts seems not to much though. If we consult the extra shifts box YW 312 that's like a serious success.
-
Hey, I'm a wizard that does a weapons-10, 4-zone megablast to pancake that building. Can I say that everybody inside only gets knocked out? Even better, can I say that all the evil vampires get flattened while the physically weaker and already abused hostages survive?
Narrating results has to make sense.
Right, and my point is that the game already has ample ways to reflect that fact without adding arbitrary "if you inflict more than X stress, you killed your target" rules or the like. In your example, as the GM I'd argue that your target was actually the building you just pancaked and that any people inside are outside the scope of your ability to declare the result of a take-out.
I might have found a solution to the problem that I'd like to hear your take on. It came to me just half an hour ago and it's not fully thought through, nor is it tested or anything. Basically the problem is that to many shifts may be created to merit lets say a incapacitating take out, yes?
People are too hung up on the idea of stress as damage, when actually it's a measure of how quickly you can win the fight. If you start treating it like damage, the whole thing falls apart.
As a matter of fact there are rules about how to handle extra shifts. Take a look at YW 312 and the extra shifts section. I think it could apply. It even would be an elegant way to represent the difficulty of getting to a takeout through application of raw force. To get to an KO take out through an Attack Action, the player might have to generate more shifts on his attack roll, as it is generally more difficult to knock somebody out then crack some bones. If he fails to reach the required level of shifts, then he fails in pulling of the desired effect.
That works for non-conflict actions certainly. It doesn't really make sense for conflicts, and even the section you cite says that the obvious example of extra shifts is conflict: namely, extra shifts inflict more stress.
I don't know if I managed to communicate the idea correctly so I'll try an example:
William the Vampire Slayer wants to knock out a mook who is guarding the warehouse he'd like to get in quietly. Will is a tough guy with inhuman strength and stalks up to his target without a problem. His player Jon declares that he only wants to knock out the guy with an incapacitating blow to the neck. The GM decides that this is probably more difficult then just hiting him with all the force Will could muster and that he might seriously hurt the guy if he isn't really careful, meaning, that he has to generate at least three extra shifts to pull the attack of in this way. The GM also declares that, if the extra shift's aren't created through the attack roll, then the take out is likely not to be as desired.
Jon is fine with that and rolls weapons, which Will has on good, using a rusty pipe he found (Weapon:1). The roll is neither good nor bad 0 + - 0. The mook rolls his defense with endurance or athletics (both only average) and gets a bad result - - - +. His roll is poor -1. The required extra shifts are generated: Good vs Poor = 5. The KO is effective.
I'm pretty sure you guys can come up with a negative example yourself...
A better way to handle this, IMHO, is with a compel. Basically, when William takes out the guard and declares "I karate chop him in the neck and knock him out," the GM should ask himself "is it more interesting if William accidentally kills this guy?" If the answer is "no," let the declaration stand. You're not adding anything to the game by adding extra requirements onto a successful roll. If the answer is "yes," compel William's Vampire Slayer high concept. That's why characters have to have a high concept that ties to their supernatural nature: to allow you to compel things based on their powers. In this case, slide a Fate point across the table and say "You know, William sometimes forgets how strong a Vampire Slayer really is. I think maybe you hit him too hard." If William is willing and able to resist the compel, he's successful at pulling his blow, and he didn't have to make himself less effective at the thing he's supposed to be good at to do what he was trying to do anyways.
-
Yeah I guess William the Vampire Slayer could have paid a fate point to invoke his high-concept, referencing his vampire strength, to declare that he will be able to easily knock this guy out without incident.
-
Yeah I guess William the Vampire Slayer could have paid a fate point to invoke his high-concept, referencing his vampire strength, to declare that he will be able to easily knock this guy out without incident.
That's another option, especially if failing to get past the guard undetected wouldn't be fun or interesting. Assuming there was a reason for it to be a conflict, though, I'd still let William's player declare the taken out result and then offer a compel to up it to something lethal.
-
Offering compels creates a problem though: it means that characters basically have to stockpile most of their FATE points because otherwise the GM will destroy their characters with compels. Because that would make the game less interesting for everyone (aspect usage is was what makes FATE interesting) such a strategy seems unwise.
-
The GM shouldn't offer the compel unless it's to make things interesting. Perhaps there is a reason why he doesn't want you to have lots of fate points. Plus, generally to 'stockpile' you'd need to accept compels anyway. This game is particular reliant on good DM's.
-
Offering compels creates a problem though: it means that characters basically have to stockpile most of their FATE points because otherwise the GM will destroy their characters with compels. Because that would make the game less interesting for everyone (aspect usage is was what makes FATE interesting) such a strategy seems unwise.
That's not a problem with offering compels, it's a problem with a) the GM offering compels when the circumstances of the compel don't make the game interesting (see above; if there's no real way William accidentally killing the guard makes for a better story, don't offer the compel) and b) the GM "destroying" players with compels. Compels should make the character's life more interesting (from a story point of view), not "destroy" them. There's a whole section on this topic on YS104.
-
Offering compels creates a problem though: it means that characters basically have to stockpile most of their FATE points because otherwise the GM will destroy their characters with compels. Because that would make the game less interesting for everyone (aspect usage is was what makes FATE interesting) such a strategy seems unwise.
A GM can always destroy a player with Compels he knows they won't obey, just like he can have Thor walk in and summarily kill them. Neither is reccomended, or done by good GMs.
-
There's a lot of trust placed by this game on players and GMs alike to be mature and responsible during play. It's one of my favourite things about the game, that the fun really hinges on the group co-operating. If a GM's throwing compels around just to screw over the players, he needs to re-think why he's running the game.
Compels are my favourite way to emulate characters being tempted to cross the line and kill an opponent, or having to make an effort to retain control. It's a simple and straightforward method of handling the issue.
-
There's a lot of trust placed by this game on players and GMs alike to be mature and responsible during play. It's one of my favourite things about the game, that the fun really hinges on the group co-operating. If a GM's throwing compels around just to screw over the players, he needs to re-think why he's running the game.
This is the most important fact that I hoped would come of this topic. Conversely, if a player wants to slaughter NPCs left and right, and the GM does not want to run that sort of game, the foundation of the game isn't there, either. Players aren't the only ones who need to speak up if they are not having fun.