ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Richard_Chilton on July 10, 2011, 12:52:43 AM
-
Just thought I'd share something I recently tried - giving the players a chance to choose something for the bad guy.
We recently had a major fight - the big bad tracked down the PCs to where one of them lived. Fortunately the big bad thought they were rival drug dealers (a huge mix up, don't ask) and wasn't prepared for mystic resistance.
So he had two normal toughs with him - a couple of Good skills each, one stunt each, each could take one minor consequence - and the Big Bad had a full sheet and full consequences. When he realised that things weren't going good for his side Big Bad decided it was time to leave - and he had a rote for that (Evocation veil that lasted for two exchanges). Two players made Lore declarations that they had a potion that could pierce veils (they didn't want to look at him with the Sight) and one (the powerhouse in hand to hand combat) was able to spot him. As combat went on I decided to make part of his sheet public (everything except rotes and items - which were on another page), so people could see just what they were (and weren't) doing to him.
When things got really bad for him, he did a non-rote Evocation veil, taking mental stress so he could have it at Legendary for 2 exchanges. As he was fleeing at Inhuman Speed, the wizard who went through that ordeal I posted a while back had one last shot at him. At this point he had his 1st stress box unmarked. He had taken two mild physical consequences (he had a stunt that gave him a second one) and his moderate and severe were used.
Needing to do at least two points of stress the wizard blew through his remaining FATE chips, taping every aspect he could to get bonuses on his targeting rote to cast his magic bolt at the fleeing warlock. Then the warlock dodged into the bolt (rolled horrible with his defense roll) and when the last of the warlock's defenses were taken into account there were 7 stress remaining. If he got away he could rest up, gather allies, and even contact criminals to put contracts out on the group.
So I gave the player a choice over whether the warlock used his extreme. It was up to the player who fried him - the warlock would use his extreme and escape OR the warlock would die from the 7 stress levels. After all, the wizard had put everything he had behind the attack (tagging everything he could and spending all of his FATE chips) and he knew the attack could kill, so either the bad guy gets away or the bad guy dies - his choice.
After the game, the player said having that choice was one of the funnest moments of RPing that he'd ever had when dice were being rolled. A moral choice after the dice are rolled and the result determined? He'd never seen that before.
What did he choose? It didn't matter to him (it mattered to the PCs, not the player). What mattered was that he had the choice.
Richard
-
I like to give the players a choice too:
Cake or death. :P
-
Cake or death.
Death. ... WAIT NO, I MEANT CAKE! TOTALLY CAKE.
More seriously, the more choice you give players and that you can roll with - the better. And, with the stakes being right there, it was an awesome choice that you presented your player. Totally awesome!
-
Just thought I'd share something I recently tried - giving the players a chance to choose something for the bad guy.
We recently had a major fight - the big bad tracked down the PCs to where one of them lived. Fortunately the big bad thought they were rival drug dealers (a huge mix up, don't ask) and wasn't prepared for mystic resistance.
So he had two normal toughs with him - a couple of Good skills each, one stunt each, each could take one minor consequence - and the Big Bad had a full sheet and full consequences. When he realised that things weren't going good for his side Big Bad decided it was time to leave - and he had a rote for that (Evocation veil that lasted for two exchanges). Two players made Lore declarations that they had a potion that could pierce veils (they didn't want to look at him with the Sight) and one (the powerhouse in hand to hand combat) was able to spot him. As combat went on I decided to make part of his sheet public (everything except rotes and items - which were on another page), so people could see just what they were (and weren't) doing to him.
When things got really bad for him, he did a non-rote Evocation veil, taking mental stress so he could have it at Legendary for 2 exchanges. As he was fleeing at Inhuman Speed, the wizard who went through that ordeal I posted a while back had one last shot at him. At this point he had his 1st stress box unmarked. He had taken two mild physical consequences (he had a stunt that gave him a second one) and his moderate and severe were used.
Needing to do at least two points of stress the wizard blew through his remaining FATE chips, taping every aspect he could to get bonuses on his targeting rote to cast his magic bolt at the fleeing warlock. Then the warlock dodged into the bolt (rolled horrible with his defense roll) and when the last of the warlock's defenses were taken into account there were 7 stress remaining. If he got away he could rest up, gather allies, and even contact criminals to put contracts out on the group.
So I gave the player a choice over whether the warlock used his extreme. It was up to the player who fried him - the warlock would use his extreme and escape OR the warlock would die from the 7 stress levels. After all, the wizard had put everything he had behind the attack (tagging everything he could and spending all of his FATE chips) and he knew the attack could kill, so either the bad guy gets away or the bad guy dies - his choice.
After the game, the player said having that choice was one of the funnest moments of RPing that he'd ever had when dice were being rolled. A moral choice after the dice are rolled and the result determined? He'd never seen that before.
What did he choose? It didn't matter to him (it mattered to the PCs, not the player). What mattered was that he had the choice.
Richard
Great stuff Richard. I really think you've hit upon one of the strengths of the system and the mechanisms behind the "taken out" and consequence rules, with your own modest spin on them. The system really shines for its collaborative qualities. Role-playing has always been, to varying degrees, cooperative story telling, and the FATE system really puts a spotlight on that aspect (pun recognized and accepted).
-
I think you've done a great thing for the players, being so open and honest with them and I do get the feeling that's what DFRPG is all about.
However, one question arose to me: if the player would have his character kill the warlock, wouldn't that mean he'd be a Lawbreaker? I, of course, don't know if he's a Warden, or if he could convince the Wardens of the warlock's guilt, but it is killing with magic, is it not? Hence, Morgan uses a sword to execute warlocks, right?
-
I think you've done a great thing for the players, being so open and honest with them and I do get the feeling that's what DFRPG is all about.
However, one question arose to me: if the player would have his character kill the warlock, wouldn't that mean he'd be a Lawbreaker? I, of course, don't know if he's a Warden, or if he could convince the Wardens of the warlock's guilt, but it is killing with magic, is it not? Hence, Morgan uses a sword to execute warlocks, right?
Whilst that would depend on the table in question, from my point of view yes; that would be a lawbreaker, at least, as far as the stunt is concerned. Which is why I love how the GM handled this. The lawbreaker stunt changes a character, both in the roleplaying opportunities, and how their sheet looks. However it should always (well, almost) be a player's choice whether or not that is the road they wish their character to travel down.
Richard handled the situation brilliantly. He was fair, giving the player the ultimate choice as-to whether or not the magic would prove lethal. But he also let the player know the consequences of each choice, the bad guy would have time to recover (somewhat) and bring more resources to bare if taking the Extreme consequence, but that if the bad guy didn't, the magic would prove lethal; which is a perfectly reasonable line to draw, given the fluff of the attack, and the character pouring everything into the attack.
One other thought, would be to do it as a joint compel on the Wizard's high concept. Either the magic proves lethal (a [mostly, but I think in context] reasonable compel), or the bad guy escapes, maybe as the Wizard realises what would happen and holds back a little (another perfectly reasonable compel). The player can choose which compel to accept, without paying off the other - there is an example of similar happening to 'Michael' somewhere in the rulebook. As a player can usually control the Taken Out results, I think a Fate point might be a fair exchange for limiting the choice. However, from the sounds of it Richard's group were happy with the outcome, and didn't need that little bit of coercion.
Nice work Richard, and thank you for sharing!
-
However, one question arose to me: if the player would have his character kill the warlock, wouldn't that mean he'd be a Lawbreaker?
Yes, it would have given the PC Lawbreaker. The thing is, I doubt any of the other PCs would have reported it so it was just a question about the guilt of killing another human being. And no, I might not have been entirely fair making the choice "save the entire group at cost to your PC OR endanger the entire group" - but the PC had put everything he had behind his attack. All his FATE points for one last shot at the departing enemy. He wasn't pulling any punches and seven stress points implies an Epic level of damage - and that was after the Warlock did everything he could to protect himself.
With that much damage, onto a guy who had already taken 2 mild, 1 moderate, 1 severe, and had only one stress (the first box) unchecked I think "He's dead" is an acceptable ruling.
That, and I wanted the players to feel in control. If they pound their hardest on the Bad Guy and the Bad Guy gets away then it takes something away from them. This way they decided (because while there was one player making the decision the event table talked about it) if the Bad Guy could run or not...
Interestingly enough, the idea of Lawbreaker wasn't raised until afterwards. As in "Hey, if I had killed him would I have to take lawbreaker" being asked after the decision. (Answer "You mean if you had killed him with magic, would you become a lawbreaker for killing someone with magic?"). Instead it was the player's character concept that decided. He's based around the idea of being a comic book inspired wizard (some of his resources are constantly devoted to maintaining his growing comic collection) and superheroes don't kill.
But on the other hand, after they decided they pointed out that he had bled so they should be able to find his blood - meaning that after resting for a scene (eating the pizzas they ordered) they'll be ready to track him down and handle him - hopefully before he can counterattack them.
So while the choice might not have been completely fair and the PCs saw an angle that I hadn't thought of, the group loved being able to choose. I'm going to try to do things like this in the future.
Richard
-
Doesn't the player get to decide how the NPC is taken out, instead of having his choices limited?
-
Doesn't the player get to decide how the NPC is taken out, instead of having his choices limited?
Perhaps with an 'accidental' take out, but this was an action where the character poured every last ounce of power into hitting that bastard smack on the buttocks. Really, really SMACK, so I can see the GM saying: "Okay, this spell's got all the juice you had. It's gonna kill the guy, unless you decide to rein it in on the last moment. Your choice, he lives to fight another day or you become a Lawbreaker."
Not only is it fair, it's thematically correct. In the heat of battle, he might have even ruled that the character didn't have the presence of mind to spare the villain. IMHO.
-
Doesn't the player get to decide how the NPC is taken out, instead of having his choices limited?
The choice has to be one acceptable to those at the table. There have been long threads discussing this issue, but more importantly those at the table enjoyed what happened - which means the spirit of the rules were followed.
Richard
-
Doesn't the player get to decide how the NPC is taken out, instead of having his choices limited?
Except the player wasn't guaranteed a takeout here, as the NPC had the option of taking an extreme consequence.
-
Except the player wasn't guaranteed a takeout here, as the NPC had the option of taking an extreme consequence.
I think that was the part of point I was trying to make. The GM was also guilty of playing the meta-game by not having his GMPC take the Extreme consequence but instead pushing the buck to the player.
Really, really SMACK, so I can see the GM saying: "Okay, this spell's got all the juice you had. It's gonna kill the guy, unless you decide to rein it in on the last moment. Your choice, he lives to fight another day or you become a Lawbreaker."
And I do not think that is fair. The GM is in effect limiting (without even Compelling) the player's choices. The player could have said the NPC gets SMACKed so hard he ends up in a vegetative coma for the next century or so (assuming the NPC has Wizard's Constitution or similar). Remember the player, not the player character, gets to decide how the NPC is taken out. The PC may well want to murder the NPC, but the player may decide not to.
-
Basically, he offered the player a concession. "I'm willing to concede, with the outcome that I die. If you don't accept the concession, I'll take the extreme consequence, which as you know would allow me to escape." The player, then, chooses to accept or reject the concession. Sounds fine to me!
-
Remember the player, not the player character, gets to decide how the NPC is taken out. The PC may well want to murder the NPC, but the player may decide not to.
The player gets to decide how, within reason; defined in most cases by general table consensus. This means that he doesn't get to give someone cancer with an uppercut no matter how many shifts he gets on his Fists attack, and he doesn't get to blow a dude's head off with a witty bon mot no matter how awesome his Intimidation roll was.
In any case, I'm finding it hard to fault the GM for giving a player the option of gaining a personal story hook instead of just having the NPC take the Extreme Consequence and flee as a Concession anyway, which would have been well within his rights in terms of the rules as written.
-
Basically, he offered the player a concession. "I'm willing to concede, with the outcome that I die. If you don't accept the concession, I'll take the extreme consequence, which as you know would allow me to escape." The player, then, chooses to accept or reject the concession. Sounds fine to me!
Or, if you want to take a more defensibly legalistic position, the NPC takes the Extreme Consequence either way and then offers as two options for his Concession to die or escape.
-
The GM is guilty of this or that? I didn't know there was a game court :)
The PC was not in a position to "take out" the bad guy so the rules didn't allow him to dictate the take out. Going by a strict reading of the rules the bad guy was going to get away - use up an extreme consequence and flee, which would have been an anticlimax for the battle. Then again, the NPC has been built up as an intelligent being, one that didn't have a motive to fight to the death if he could flee and fight another day. That would have made a crummy game so the rules were bent.
Bent? Nay, broken! The rules are clear that the GM decides what happens with NPCs (unless declarations etc happen). The letter of the rules were broken, but the spirit of FATE, of letting the players control as much as the game as they can, lived on.
If the player had said "I don't want this choice" then he wouldn't have had to made it. After all, he'd made his roll and his roll had failed. After poring everything he had into stopping Bad Guy he was still three stress from stopping Bad Guy. A fair and impartial reading of the rules would have been "Close, but no. He gets away. Well, that was a good effort but the group couldn't close the deal."
But (as mentioned) that would have been anticlimactic. By giving the choice to the player who had missed the roll I gave him the option of deciding how the battle should end - even though the dice said "No, he doesn't get a say here".
As for meta-gaming, that's what GMs do every time they scale the opponent to the players' power level. It's what they do every time they think "Joe hasn't had a chance to do much this game - let's see what his skills are and then shape things so he'll get to do more than just sit there watching". It's done every time the GM decides "I was going to put 5 guys to defend the princess, but the PCs are already pretty chewed up so there's only going to be three of them". In short, virtually everything the GM does is beyond the game world and is meta gaming. Now if an NPC suddenly had knowledge that he shouldn't then that could be a problem, but how do you run NPCs that are smarter than you are? Amber Diceless RPG had advice for that - advice that involves taking things to a new level as far as meta-gaming goes.
As for making the choice "Death or escape" - the wizard had put everything he could behind his spell. He wasn't holding anything back and he knew he was dealing with a human. When taking someone out "The outcome must remain within the realm of reason". Couple that with the DFRPG being about choices and living with decisions and I believe that there are times when the game flow dictates that death happens. Which is why Harry felt so bad after a "DIE VAMPIRE DIE VAMPIRE" fire blast when he remembered "Oh yeah, there were those kids in the house." and others had to tell him "the poison probably killed them first".
As for the Lawbreaker aspect, no one brought that up until afterwards and the Lawbreaker bit is something that gets debated to death here. There's never been a firm ruling on it - just three sets of advice that don't always agree on all points.
You seem to view the game as being a contest between the GM and the Players, with each being confined by Rules rather than the game being a story they build together. That's more true for D&D than DFRPG. After all, there's nothing stopping an intelligent foe (run by the GM) from handling thing the way Marcone would handle a conflict with Dresden - but that wouldn't be a fun game to play in.
Richard
-
As ever, a coherent and in-depth reply! I'm learning so much more about the spirit of DFRPG through this forum, I'm glad I looked it up :D Now to get these rules under my belt...
-
I always knowing when to bend the rules was the difference between a good and great GM.
-
Just checked with the highest rules authority and it turns out that I didn't bent or break any rules. No, I didn't send an email to Fred - I want him to devote his time to working on the next book(s) so I went over his head.
I asked the table - the group that Fred maintains is the highest authority on how the game should be played - and it turns out that it was within the rules.
As for it being a concession - the dice had already been rolled and the outcome determined. Maybe it could be a future concession... Or maybe it could be called a motivation check: "Do you think the NPC wants to live with an extreme consequence, or would death be better?". I.E. assign the severe as something fatal in the near term (You shoot his arm off - and now there's blood spurting) or "just" something that will cripple him.
Richard
-
Taking a consequence is always a "metagame concern".