ParanetOnline

The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Papa Gruff on May 04, 2011, 01:26:04 PM

Title: The concept of conceding
Post by: Papa Gruff on May 04, 2011, 01:26:04 PM: Hello everybody...

... today I'd like to ask you about your experiences with concedes. During the year (almost) of playing FATE and DFRPG there have been multiple occasions where concedes led to somewhat awkward situations. The problem is, that players usually tend to feel cheated if you let a NPC concede at the end of a lengthy conflict, to life and fight an other day. Most of the time they don't see the benefits of just winning the conflict and reaching their goal. Usually they seem to feel the need to kill or at least capture the bad guy or the monster to gain accomplishment.

This especially seems to hold true with seasoned RPG veterans that have played other systems before, where there aren't similar concepts... While me and my usual group have reached some kind of understanding on the matter, it becomes difficult when you play with people unfamiliar to FATE. I have run a convention game where the notion of conceding led to raised eyebrows and I faltered for the sake of everbody having fun (which was a good choice after all)... But sometimes you just don't want your high roller bad guy to get killed on the outskirts of a campaign but the PC manage to corner them badly.

So? How to avoid player frustration when declaring that the bad guy concedes / runs away? ... By the way: I know that it all comes down to the narration of the concede. Yet sometimes that seems not to be enough.

I'm interested in how my fellow GM handle this.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: luminos on May 04, 2011, 01:41:13 PM: Well, for starters, the people you concede to have to agree that the concession is appropriate. If the players have cornered a bad guy and are completely focused on killing him, conceding probably shouldn't happen. Making the concession "the bad guy gets away, but you get the mcguffin" is certainly inappropriate when the PC's goal isn't to get the mcguffin. Conceding that the bad guy dies, but that he gets off a nasty death curse, on the other hand, is more possible.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: toturi on May 04, 2011, 01:59:28 PM: Perhaps it is not so much that the players being unused to the concept of conceding or that they do not see the benefits of just winning the conflict and reaching their goal. It is that their goal includes not allowing the bad guy to concede. Their end game dictates that the bad guy has no way out, no retaliation possible. Any less than total and unconditional victory on their terms is unacceptable.

It is simply a difference in expectations, I feel. Sometimes you just have to accept that the bad guy gets run over 5 minutes into your campaign is in the interest of everybody else having fun; this is what I prepare myself to accept if and when it occurs.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: MyNinjaH8sU on May 04, 2011, 02:00:47 PM: My players had a necromancer almost dead and cornered. He caved in the street beneath him and beat a retreat through the sewers, the tremors causing a water tower by the road to come down, leaving the players to save themselves and the bystandards nearby.

Now, I didn't call this a concession, because I get those same raised eyebrows, but it totally was. Maybe that's a good trick, just couching it in different, dramatic terminology.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: Papa Gruff on May 04, 2011, 02:31:56 PM: Ok. I get what luminos said but the rules are pretty strait forward about under what circumstances concessions are allowed. Technically they have nothing to do with the goals of the PC that manage to force the concession. They are all about the character that concedes. To me that is the fundamental difference between the simple takeout and the concession. The conceding character looses but gets to have a strong word to say how this loss takes shape.

Example: During our last game session I let a red court nobel (a face of the campaign) concede and take flight into the deeps of the mine that she and her minions had taken shelter in. The party had set out to free a distressed damsel out of her claws and therefor succeeded. The vamp had taken some consequences, pretty much lost the fight and her prise already, so the concession was solidly grounded in the rules. I saved a face and the opportunity to bring her up in future scenarios. We debated the concession and I made amendments yet I didn't get the feeling that everybody was satisfied...

... an other thing to consider is, that concessions aren't NPC only. A beaten PC may also concede to save his hide and proceed on an alternative path. Usually I don't like to draw on the novels too much during rule discussions, but Harry does this all the time! If the game table doesn't allow the reasonable concession of a NPC then - in my opinion - the hole concept has to be taken into question and a cornered PC shouldn't get to concede either...
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: admiralducksauce on May 04, 2011, 02:50:17 PM: I really haven't had any problems with villain concessions, actually. I can think of a few potential reasons:

1. The conflict in question wasn't about killing the villain. An enemy ambush by mortal agents gets turned around on them and they flee, leaving their SUV with their arsenal behind. The NPCs' goal was to capture or kill the PCs; the PCs were clearly simply acting in self-defense so I think running the bad guys off was enough for them.

2. The villain is sufficiently outmatched before the concession, or to put it another way, the PCs have gotten a satisfying amount of licks in before the villain turns tail. There's no question they've defeated the villain.

3. The villain has flight, and therefore has an easy means of escape. :)

4. My group plays its fair share of superhero games and is tolerant of the fine tradition of recurring villains. I think it also helps if you state this guy ain't coming back this session.

5. Setting aspects such as "Monologues and Deathtraps" or personal aspects like "Driven By Redemption" that can be compelled to reinforce a concession without outright murder.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: Tedronai on May 04, 2011, 03:50:51 PM: So, for clarity's sake, here's the relevant text:

Quote from: YS206
A concession has to pass muster with the
group before it is accepted—the conditions of
the loss still have to represent a clear and decisive
disadvantage for your character. If the group
(note that your opponent is part of the group
for this!) feels like your character is getting off
easy, you’ll need to rework the concession until
it’s acceptable.

Bolding added

Beyond that, someone suggest a bit ago that 'the BBEG dies, but gets off a nasty death curse' might be an appropriate concession.

It's not.

While the victor in any conflict gets to dictate the general terms of a Taken Out result, much of the specifics are left to the defeated. See YS203, the sidebar 'Dictating Outcomes', and the 'sticky note' between Harry and Will immediately below.

Basically, that BBEG gets to toss their death curse, if doing so would be reasonable (ie. probably not if they drop from a single bullet to the head at several hundred meters), even on a complete Taken Out result.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: ways and means on May 04, 2011, 04:55:56 PM: I like the concession rules, but part of what I like about the consesssion rules is if a recurring villan wants to concede and run away leaving the maguffin or throwing a moral dilema such as the joker gambit (damsel in distress with time bomb in another building) the PC can just say no to the consession and carry on until they can have victory on there terms (takeout), I only really see concession as appropriate when both sides have reasons for wanting the combat to end as soon as possible.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: luminos on May 04, 2011, 05:32:28 PM: Quote from: Papa Gruff on May 04, 2011, 02:31:56 PM

... an other thing to consider is, that concessions aren't NPC only. A beaten PC may also concede to save his hide and proceed on an alternative path. Usually I don't like to draw on the novels too much during rule discussions, but Harry does this all the time! If the game table doesn't allow the reasonable concession of a NPC then - in my opinion - the hole concept has to be taken into question and a cornered PC shouldn't get to concede either...

This is a really good point. By the nature of concessions, what is acceptable will vary by group. But the kind of concessions the players insist on for NPC's will likely reflect on what kind of concessions are acceptable for the PC's themselves.

If the players are uncomfortable with how concessions are being used, I'd first try to host a group discussion about the purpose and acceptable range of concessions. If the players were still uncomfortable with how I was using them, it might just be better to shrug and let the players preferences determine in the abstract how concessions are to be treated.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: Sanctaphrax on May 04, 2011, 11:26:26 PM: Concessions have worked very well for me so far. They provide a panic button for players and a way to resolve social combat amicably.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: devonapple on May 04, 2011, 11:35:01 PM: I don't get a chance to use them very often, as it turns out. And the one time I really wanted to use one, I failed to declare it before the dice were rolled, so I would have had to cheat to keep that villain alive. My players manage to either extricate themselves before they'd need a concession, or catch me off guard and win so decisively that a concession just isn't available. Some "concessions" even get handled fully with RP. Maybe I've been too permissive? The few times we *do* use concessions, they seem a little forced and inadequate to the task, but I think that's more about lack of practice than a flaw in the method.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: mostlyawake on May 05, 2011, 02:53:52 AM: I tend to push towards concessions on lesser enemies instead of pointing out that they have less consequences...also when time is of the essence...

"You've made some pretty good arguments as to why the guy should leave the enemy and join you. If it's cool he's going to concede and tell you that maybe his boss isn't looking after him properly, and he'll consider what you said. If you want to win him over completely, it's going to take a few more minutes of conversation, and the biker gang is going to get further away from you"

"You've taken down three of the eight gang members... the rest are going to try to run, leaving their fallen buddies behind. Is it cool if we call that a concession and go ahead and move towards interrogating the one dude you left alive?"

On the BBEG, I tend to actually have valid escape plans (insta-spell back into the nevernever is popular) to use instead of trying to rely on concessions. So I approach the concession by giving the players something extra, like this: "Ok. here's the deal; the dude has a pretty reliable escape potion that will get him out of here. We can roleplay that out and he'll likely do so successfully without giving anything away, or we can just say that he concedes here, using the potion but accidentally dropping a piece of paper as he tries to scramble for the potion."

That said, because i was trying to teach my group how THEY could use concessions, I used concessions for bad guys consistently, even when it could have ended in death. The only time I didnt offer a concession was when the enemy was something unintelligent like zombies or w/e.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: @BCrosswood on May 05, 2011, 06:16:31 AM: The way I've always seen concessions run the concession has to be agreed upon unanimusly. If even one character wants to keep going round by round then you keep going round by round or figure out a concession that fits everyone.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: Papa Gruff on May 05, 2011, 12:49:51 PM: Quote from: @BCrosswood on May 05, 2011, 06:16:31 AM
The way I've always seen concessions run the concession has to be agreed upon unanimusly. If even one character wants to keep going round by round then you keep going round by round or figure out a concession that fits everyone.

That's not how I see it. If someone concedes he concedes. There isn't anything someone can do against it. The only thing that can be done at this point is to haggle about the conditions of the concede. If someone could just veto the concession, then the hole concept would be meaningless.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: Tedronai on May 05, 2011, 01:02:20 PM: Of course, that 'haggling about conditions' might include, 'no, he's not getting away, I gonna run him down and pop a few shotgun slugs in his head'.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: BumblingBear on May 05, 2011, 01:20:19 PM: My npcs don't concede very often just for that reason.

I generally make them run away and if my PCs can figure out a way to capture or incapacitate them, they win.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: Papa Gruff on May 05, 2011, 01:28:09 PM: Quote from: Tedronai on May 05, 2011, 01:02:20 PM
Of course, that 'haggling about conditions' might include, 'no, he's not getting away, I gonna run him down and pop a few shotgun slugs in his head'.

In which case the conceding party might just say: 'Hell no, I have just conceded to prevent this from happening. I prefer running away while screaming ridiculously and wildly flailing with my arms'. What you are proposing isn't reasonable debating over the terms of the concession. It is clearly a taken out result that may be chosen in said situation.

Not sure if you were serious though. :)
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: BumblingBear on May 05, 2011, 01:39:46 PM: Oh yeah - OP.

Another think you can do is give your NPC an aspect of "recurring plot villain" and compel it for effect.

You can further sweeten the plot by giving all your PCs a fate point when this happens.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: WillH on May 05, 2011, 02:21:05 PM: Quote from: Papa Gruff on May 05, 2011, 12:49:51 PM
That's not how I see it. If someone concedes he concedes. There isn't anything someone can do against it. The only thing that can be done at this point is to haggle about the conditions of the concede. If someone could just veto the concession, then the hole concept would be meaningless.

You offer a concession. There is no requirement to accept that offer.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: Papa Gruff on May 05, 2011, 03:05:41 PM: Quote from: WillH on May 05, 2011, 02:21:05 PM
You offer a concession. There is no requirement to accept that offer.

Yes. The book speaks about offering the concession but doesn't about the possibility of a declining it. Thus it is implied (at least to me), that if a concession is offered and the given guidelines (discussion, circumstances, etc.) are satisfied it should carry through in some way.

That said: if the conceding part is reasonably defeated and has a good flight plan prepared it is unreasonable to say: 'no, he's not getting away, I gonna run him down and pop a few shotgun slugs in his head' ... to me that just seems not to be the idea of concessions.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: Silverblaze on May 05, 2011, 04:29:55 PM: I'm 50/50 on concessions.

I like them from a storytelling point of view. I like that a GM can save his PC's and NPC's lives. Key word

CAN

Not Must...Not this is unavoidable...but CAN
I don't like any idea that it can be "forced". That isn't playing a game that's the GM saying, "Nope, can't kill this guy! You wanted revenge too bad, the bad guy started crying and gets to live. Doesn't matter how remorseless or angry you are. He gets away."

This may speak of my personal character(personality not PC or game character)...I'm not inclined to let a hated enemy beg for forgiveness if I want to punch him in the face or call the cops etc. In a game if someone says uncle, there should be no rule saying I have to just walk away and say "aww shucks he pulled out a concession rule:(" That's just as unfair as never having mercy on an NPC or PC.

I figure an aspect called "Give no quarter and expect none." Should at the very least avoid this concessiojn dillemna. Which in a game where I was forced into them...I would want on every PC I played.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: MarkB on May 05, 2011, 05:30:54 PM: As a long-time RPG player, some of the most frustrating moments I can remember - not just for me but for other players - have been when a major opponent who was on the ropes manages to suddenly conveniently slip away just as he was about to be taken out. Such tactics need to be used very sparingly if you don't want to leave players feeling like their victory has been snatched from them.

That said, I think you're correct in stating that a concession can't be rejected outright. The Taken Out, Concession, and Character Death column on page 206 clearly indicates that concessions are an available option even against creatures whose only goal is to kill you.

However, it is clear that if the concession isn't acceptable to the group as a whole, it must be re-worked until you find one that is. In some cases, that's going to mean taking a set of consequences little better than would have resulted from a straight taking-out. If the group have the bad guy cornered and are determined to eliminate him as a threat, it's not unreasonable for them to be looking for a set of consequences severe enough that he won't be a threat for the foreseeable future - a change of High Aspect to "Used ta be a contender" or "Barely alive", for instance.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: devonapple on May 05, 2011, 06:00:33 PM: Our WCVirgin character was being Compelled to finish off an enemy she had Taken out with Incite Emotion, and was on the verge of giving in, when she called for someone to stop her before it was too late. My character was allowed to declare a Fists attack to snap her out of it, and then she was allowed to Concede that it worked.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: Wordmaker on May 06, 2011, 12:14:18 PM: I think a lot of roleplayers are used to games where killing the villain is the victory condition. It doesn't have to be that way under the FATE system, and I think that makes the system stronger than most. There's so much more variety to success than just knocking away hit points.

If a villain concedes in order to survive an encounter, the PCs have still won a victory. There's nothing really to be gained just from outright killing him. After all, if one villain dies, the GM will create a new one to replace him.

If a player specifically wants to kill a villain, and feels that what that villain can contribute to the story has run its course, they should speak to the GM and see if he'll agree to a final showdown. After all, if you're going to kill a long-term enemy, would you rather it happened unexpectedly while chasing him down the street, or in a dramatic one on one death match atop a crumbling tower with the fate of the world in the balance?
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: Belial666 on May 06, 2011, 12:43:13 PM: Quote
There's nothing really to be gained just from outright killing him. After all, if one villain dies, the GM will create a new one to replace him.

Playing it smart IC. Unless there is a compelling reason to keep an enemy alive, you should kill them. Letting them live means having said enemy to deal with again in the future.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: admiralducksauce on May 06, 2011, 12:56:12 PM: Quote from: Belial666 on May 06, 2011, 12:43:13 PM
Unless there is a compelling reason to keep an enemy alive

I see what you did there. :)
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: Wordmaker on May 06, 2011, 01:08:37 PM: But that assumes a lot. Firstly that your character has the villain in a position where he's helpless enough to kill with ease, which will not always be the case, even if you win the conflict.

Secondly, it assumes your character has the ability to stand there and kill a man. That takes a lot of willpower. Taking a life, even in urban fantasy like The Dresden Files, is a big deal. Any time Harry kills someone, it's a significant act to him, and he never does it simply because he's "playing it smart."

Lastly, it also assumes that the consequences of killing the villain are less severe than those of letting him go. If it's a member of one of the signatories of the Unseelie Accords, you wisk starting a war unless you've got a lot of evidence that you were in the right. If the villain has powerful allies, you'll bring them down on yourself and your loved ones. The villain could be the lesser evil, keeping something worse in check by his continued presence, like Marcone. And even a lone wizard can utter a death curse.

There are plenty of IC reasons to avoid killing people if you can. Just like not every fight needs to result in death, not every villain should be assumed to be of such dire threat that killing him is the single best course of action.

Aside from the IC reasons to let a villain live, what about the OOC ones? A huge amount of how the game works is based on an acknowledgement of how important it is to view the game in a meta sense, as a shared narrative creation, rather than each player just being totally immersed in their own character.

Surely a recurring villain who builds a relationship with the characters, who they look forward to defeating each time he appears, is a lot more fun than not only making your GM come up with new villains every time, but also just facing one throwaway bad guy after another, none of whom really matter in the long run?
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: InFerrumVeritas on May 06, 2011, 01:17:06 PM: Quote from: Belial666 on May 06, 2011, 12:43:13 PM
Playing it smart IC. Unless there is a compelling reason to keep an enemy alive, you should kill them. Letting them live means having said enemy to deal with again in the future.

This. Unlike Superhero books, most people tend to feel that letting the powerful thing that's been trying to kill them for some time get away will come back to bite them in the ass. Even if the GM makes a new villain, the CHARACTERS don't know this will happen. If they did, they'd see it as having two threats to deal with instead of one and still kill to opponent.

Concessions are awesome. So is a taken out result that doesn't involve death. They are great things. However I think there are some key points:

If you are fighting to the death (which often you won't be depending on the scenario), it's important to Concede while you still have a chance of kicking ass. You've taken your licks. You've got some consequences. But so have your opponents. There's a very real chance that you could kill them if the fight goes on, but also a chance that you'll be killed as well. You concede to live and fight another day and they do too. Staying to fight is an option, but not a risk you're willing to take.

I think this should be done across the board (for PCs too) so that PCs aren't asking for concessions after fighting to the very last against monsters that want to kill them. If you're escaping, your opponents have to have a reason to not just run you down.

An exception to this is if you have an escape plan set up. You drop a building on someone, hop into the Nevernever and lose them, Joker Dillema, etc. Even then though, you're not at your last. You still have SOMETHING you can do.

Taken out not involving death is a bit different. That's set by your opponents. To get this, you should justify why they DON'T want to kill you (capture for ritual, need information, can sell to higher bidder on ebay, boss wants revenge, etc).

Basically, if your opponent is handing you your ass without taking much in return, has no reason to want you to live, and you don't have an escape plan...you're probably dead.

Most people/opponents/characters should probably be wary right around the time they start taking Moderate Consequences that they should go (hell, as a GM I might even compel the consequence as a "Hey, you can keep fighting but if you don't get that fixed you might die a few hours afterward...") to suggest a character consider concession before they've got nothing left.

With players, winning the conflict is important. If you want your enemy to get away, they can. The characters don't have to be happy about it, but the PLAYERS have to be satisfied with the encounter (they accomplished their goal, had a reason to let the baddie escape, or wanted the fight over too).

Also, Wordmaker makes some excellent points on (I'd address further but it was posted while I was writing this).

If your PCs kill something that will leave a body, there are consequences that can follow. Use them. Even if they dump the body, they might still be seen or leave evidence behind. People might notice that someone is missing. If it's not human you've got the Accords to fall back on.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: toturi on May 06, 2011, 01:49:31 PM: Remind the players that conceding doesn't mean that the villain will neccesarily live long enough to take his revenge.

One of my more favorite concession counterplays is to accept the concession that the villian gets away from the PCs alive... but the villian and his henchmen/second in command turn on each other and wipe each other out (think of what Harry said to the Red King - who will bother bringing gifts if they knew he was wounded). That way, the PCs' hands are clean, there is no ready person to step into the villian's shoes, it is all good for the PCs.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: devonapple on May 06, 2011, 02:48:46 PM: Quote from: InFerrumVeritas on May 06, 2011, 01:17:06 PM
This. Unlike Superhero books, most people tend to feel that letting the powerful thing that's been trying to kill them for some time get away will come back to bite them in the ass. Even if the GM makes a new villain, the CHARACTERS don't know this will happen. If they did, they'd see it as having two threats to deal with instead of one and still kill to opponent.

Even in a superhero game I was in - wherein we were exhorted time and again to be "heroes" and act the part that history would want us to act - sparing the villain was consistently punished by a couple of our more VICIOUS and high-powered enemies. It was an unfortunate situation of mixed signals from the GM, and in the end, our "Superman" resorted to dragging one through our atmosphere until he was reduced to a smoldering hipbone.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: Wordmaker on May 06, 2011, 03:15:15 PM: That's definitely not a good situation to have. The GM can't try to concede or ask that the players spare their enemies, and then turn around and make things worse for the players as a result.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: Papa Gruff on May 06, 2011, 03:29:41 PM: Quote from: Wordmaker on May 06, 2011, 03:15:15 PM
That's definitely not a good situation to have. The GM can't try to concede or ask that the players spare their enemies, and then turn around and make things worse for the players as a result.

As a matter of fact I usually try to make it a very decisive win for the players if I let the villain escape through concession. At least I think I do. It's even in the rules. The concession needs to have a harsh or at least sufficiently painful edge for the looser. Problem is that I sometimes feel my players see it otherwise ...

... thanks for the so far amazing input on this matter by the way. This thread has tremendously helped me rethink the concession mechanic.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: Wordmaker on May 06, 2011, 03:47:20 PM: Oh, absolutely! A concession really shouldn't be a "Villain disappears in a puff of smoke" situation.

I remember one concession I used when my players were fighting a nest of Red Court vampires and one of them had to use her Severe Consequence to stay in the fight and activated her Righteousness ability (we call it "Holy Boom"). I used a concession to spare the life of the leader, but the players got to see that half his face was melted off. Permanently.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: Tedronai on May 06, 2011, 04:06:53 PM: Quote from: Wordmaker on May 06, 2011, 03:47:20 PM
Oh, absolutely! A concession really shouldn't be a "Villain disappears in a puff of smoke" situation.

I remember one concession I used when my players were fighting a nest of Red Court vampires and one of them had to use her Severe Consequence to stay in the fight and activated her Righteousness ability (we call it "Holy Boom"). I used a concession to spare the life of the leader, but the players got to see that half his face was melted off. Permanently.

Something like:
"Player: 'Bob-the-True-Believer will take a severe consequence from that attack, triggering Righteousness. Brace yourselves for the 'Holy Boom'.'
GM: 'Before you pick up those dice, I'd just like to offer a concession on the part of the big bad RCV. He'll take an extreme consequence as the power of Bob's faith tears into his body, melting half his face clean off, be out of the picture for at least a few months in-game, and his current plans are a wash, but he'll survive and escape. How's that sound?'
Player: 'Well, I did just take a severe consequence, so I guess chasing him down would be too risky right now. Yeah, I'll let him get away. This time.' "?
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: Wordmaker on May 06, 2011, 04:09:13 PM: Basically, yeah.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: Wolfwood2 on May 06, 2011, 04:48:39 PM: Incidentally, at my table we allow Concessions to be offered a little later in the process than the book would indicate. With us you can offer a Concession after the attack roll against your character but before you make your defensive roll.

We made this change because often folks are a little quick on the draw with attack rolls. It's not a bad thing; knowing what you want to do and doing it keeps the game moving. But it seems unfair to make a Concession opportunity some kind of game show buzzer speed contest where you have to realize you should concede and shout your intention to do so before the dice can be picked up and rolled. It becomes especially important when someone very much not optimized for that sort of combat realizes they have become the target of a powerful attack.

Anyone else do it that way?
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: Watson on May 06, 2011, 04:54:43 PM: What one also shall have in mind is that the one that do concede is in a way rewarded for doing so, by being given a Fate Point for each consequence that he or she had taken during the conflict ("Cashing out" YS206). As a player, I might see it not do I let the big bad villain get away [by accepting the concession], but I also give him X Fate Points, whereas we (i.e. the players) do not get any Fate Points for winning. What I mean is that this might further make the players reluctant to accept a concession by the GM on behalf of the big bad villain.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: Watson on May 06, 2011, 04:56:31 PM: Quote from: Wolfwood2 on May 06, 2011, 04:48:39 PM
Anyone else do it that way?

Good point - I might add that to my list of house rules. As you say, otherwise it might end as a game of reflexes - if the player (or GM) states the action and rolls the dice quick enough, the enemy is unable to concede...
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: InFerrumVeritas on May 06, 2011, 06:30:59 PM: Quote from: Watson on May 06, 2011, 04:54:43 PM
What one also shall have in mind is that the one that do concede is in a way rewarded for doing so, by being given a Fate Point for each consequence that he or she had taken during the conflict ("Cashing out" YS206). As a player, I might see it not do I let the big bad villain get away [by accepting the concession], but I also give him X Fate Points, whereas we (i.e. the players) do not get any Fate Points for winning. What I mean is that this might further make the players reluctant to accept a concession by the GM on behalf of the big bad villain.

I think this part of the concession rules was written for players and that consequence was unintended. At least that's how it reads. I wouldn't give the villain FP. Really, I only give my villain's FP if the Players compel them or invoke their aspects (that they don't get free tags for) or if I make them significantly lower refresh than I think is an applicable challenge for the characters. It's a house rule, but as far as anyone knows that villain could spend those FP getting away.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: Taran on May 06, 2011, 08:53:59 PM: I thought you only got the fate points when you got taken out, and not when you concede.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: devonapple on May 06, 2011, 09:02:30 PM: Quote from: Taran on May 06, 2011, 08:53:59 PM
I thought you only got the fate points when you got taken out, and not when you concede.

When you Concede, you get a FP for every Consequence you took in the Conflict.
I don't recall that Taken Out nets any Fate Points.
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: Taran on May 06, 2011, 09:06:11 PM: Sorry, just re-read it. Should have done that BEFORE I posted. :P
Title: Re: The concept of conceding
Post by: admiralducksauce on May 06, 2011, 09:17:41 PM: Quote from: devonapple on May 06, 2011, 09:02:30 PM
When you Concede, you get a FP for every Consequence you took in the Conflict.
I don't recall that Taken Out nets any Fate Points.

You get FP for Consequences whether you concede or are Taken Out ("cashing out" I believe they call it).