ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: VVolf on October 13, 2011, 01:35:49 PM
-
Here's the general situation, We began our campaign at 10 refresh and have advanced to the point of having 13 refresh. After making some adjustments to his character a were-fox-hybrid has supernatural strength and claws.
When attacking some street thugs (normal humans) the player describes punching the thug in the face, between a good attack (no claws) and a poor defense roll the thug is taking 8 shifts of stress. I say "Ok, he's dead." to which the player responds, "I'm not trying to kill him!"
"... Ok, so You've got supernatural strength, you're punching with about the force of a car going 20 miles per hour, and you're applying that directly to someone's face.... how is that not supposed to kill them?"
"If I take them out, then if just means I achieve my goal of knocking them out... I'm not trying to kill them."
At this point I gave the thug an extreme consequence: "Quadriplegic" and moved on... I guess what I'm asking is how's the best way to show that using that kind of firepower will have serious consequences ?
Any thoughts or examples of presenting consequences to players in response to their actions ? Or better phrasing, how do I effect a "You might not have trying to kill him, but..." scenario without necessarily railroading the players who've already spent all their fate chips?
-
It helps to remember that stress is not damage and consequences are not necessarily damage taken from an attack. Mook #1 could be forced to take a consequence from an exchange of gunfire and decide that he broke his leg while completely dodging every bullet. Let the players decide entirely how they directly take someone out. You deal with take outs from other NPCs and the environment.
A compel on an appropriate aspect of the player could be used call for a fatal take out. They can still avoid it but it will cost them a FP to do so. If they don't have a definitively appropriate aspect though, do not go making stuff up to justify a compel. And unless the aspect is an extreme one, do not go calling for a fatal take out every time. It's not your job to be their moral or common sense compass.
Personally, I find mortal law enforcement to be the best deterrent against players using overwhelming force and making no attempt to stay under the radar. Supernatural factions could also give them quite a bit of grief if the players' antics draw too much attention.
Also, eight stress isn't enough for an extreme consequence, much less instant death, unless all the NPC's stress boxes and other consequence slots were already full. In that instance, the player was right and you were wrong.
-
Or better phrasing, how do I effect a "You might not have trying to kill him, but..." scenario without necessarily railroading the players who've already spent all their fate chips?
They spent their FATE points already. Their asses are yours, IF they have an Aspect you can compel that would result in a lethal attack result. You shouldn't Compel simply based on the shifts of an attack roll.
However, as much as the above sentiment can come in handy sometimes, you gotta think about why you're trying to enforce a lethal result through a Compel. Because 8 shifts of stress seems like it should be lethal? Hell, you can deal with 8 stress with a mild, a moderate, and marking even the most sickly PC's 2nd stress box (because everyone has a stress track of at least 2). You'll be healed up by next session. At the same time, 3 stress can kill a dude if their stress track is 2 and the person running that character decides they're Taken Out. As Buzzard says above, "stress is not damage".
FATE is not Phoenix Command. It does not have detailed hit locations or overpenetration or bleeding rules. 8 stress does not equate to any real-world measurement, and even within the system itself what it means can vary wildly depending on the target. If you said the thug was Taken Out, and the player says he's KO'd, then the thug is knocked out. That's the rules. Now, if you think that was lame and that the thug should have been horribly crippled or killed by the strike, call the player out on it. It's your game, your group. But there are no rules supporting your position. You'll just have to figure it out.
-
I guess what I'm asking is how's the best way to show that using that kind of firepower will have serious consequences ?
Why should it? It doesn't sound like the player was expecting a sharp left turn into "oh no, I caused death or permanent serious injury" from an alley brawl with some street thugs. He wasn't even using his Claws!
Given that the party is pulling 13 refresh, and the antagonists are described as "street thugs (normal humans)," I'd have to assume this was an incidental conflict, not the climax of any sort of arc. There is no way these guys should have an Extreme Consequence slot. A Mild at best; maybe a Moderate if you're trying to provide a small challenge to your players.
Any thoughts or examples of presenting consequences to players in response to their actions ? Or better phrasing, how do I effect a "You might not have trying to kill him, but..." scenario without necessarily railroading the players who've already spent all their fate chips?
It's not possible. You pull a "You might not have been trying to kill him, but..." scenario when your players are out of fate chips, and "railroading" is precisely what you are doing.
Bluntly, it sounds like you're trying to punish your shifter player for using his character's abilities (even when he's showing restraint while doing so!), and stealing his prerogative to "decide the manner in which his victim loses," to quote YS203, the Dictating Outcomes sidebar.
-
Consequences, takeouts, etc have to be ones that are acceptable to the table - and one of the people at the table is the GM.
If someone is using supernatural strength in a fight then the thing to do is to talk them before the roll. Ask if they doing anything except pound the guy with their supernatural strength. Point out that Harry often had to aim spells around normals, pull his mystic punches, and otherwise avoid accidentally killing people.
If nothing else you should get better descriptions than "I punch him the face". Things like "I jab his solar plexus to disable him".
As for railroading - one of the main themes of Dresden (the game and the books) is freewill resulting in consequences. If you decide to punch someone with brick crushing strength then a consequence can be that you can get grey matter on your hand. Your decision, your act - live with it.
Richard
-
Nope, take outs don't have to be acceptable to the table. They're explicitly up to the one doing the taking out. Not the other players, not the GM, not Fred, not even Jim. Besides which, they can always use Overflow rules and say they barely took the person out and either use the extra shifts on a supplemental, non-combat action or discard them.
Making people specify beforehand that they're going out of their way to inflict a non-fatal result is cumbersome and unnecessary. There's no need to specify unless you're looking to waste everyone's time or you're trying to railroad your players. If you don't have methods in place to bring consequences to their actions without rewriting the rules, that's your failure not theirs.
-
I agree with Buzzard. A kill should always be a deliberate action, either on someone who has already been taken out, or by inflicting is as the taken out result, if the player so chooses.
The better question is, what would an enforced kill at this point accomplish? Do you want to stop them from interrogating the thug? There are lots of non-lethal ways to do so. Throw him in a coma long enough to be of no value. Let them interrogate him and he doesn't know anything useful. Let him loose his memories from the blow and see how the players deal with that. A kill is not really necessary, if it doesn't help the story along, especially, if there are much more interesting ways to deal with the situation. Maybe he really has important information, and the wizard is now pondering, if he should look for the answers while the guy is in a coma.
And to enforce things like that, it is always within your rights as a GM to compel an appropriate aspect. But really, only do so, if it would be entertaining, just saying "Your superstrong, so the guy is dead" is pretty boring. Or maybe kill the guy, but let him haunt the PC now, so maybe they can still access the information, but they would have to help the ghost somehow, creating a new storyline. But again, the player(s) should be cool with this, it doesn't help anyone if you just shove things in their face to piss them off.
-
Nope, take outs don't have to be acceptable to the table.
The outcome must remain within the realm of
reason
The outcome must meet a 'reasonableness test', which obviously cannot be adjudicated solely by the one describing it. And, since even the GM's proposed outcomes are subject to that same test, it must necessarily then be adjudicated by the table as a whole.
-
I honestly see where the original poster is coming from.
To a certain extent, it teaches players to use their powers slightly more responsibly. I understand this system puts a lot more power in the players hands as to how a narrative plays out. Not a bad thing. That said I think people should set their own table rules. If shooting someone can cause people to bleed out, supernatural strength can crush skulls, and wizard spells can cause permanent scarring and death...players might not just go balls to the wall at every problem.
Perhaps the player should not have declared (flavored his attack with a head shot) a gut shot even from that strength could easily be decided as non fatal.
I like a nice halfway point of realism and fantasy...leaning towards fantasy.
That said, by system...you virtually can't kill someone unless you mean to. Even if you put a bomb on a train, cut out the bridge, and watch it fall down a cliff and explode. Everyone is just miraculously knocked out. ::)
So to answer the original post...you do not enforce realism, unless you made it clear at your table that is how stuff goes at the very start fo the game and enough players were okay with it to still play the game.
Actually the second I read were-fox and supernatural strength...I had an issue already. (granted just my opinion, but they don't seem the supernaturally strong type to me)
-
That said, by system...you virtually can't kill someone unless you mean to. Even if you put a bomb on a train, cut out the bridge, and watch it fall down a cliff and explode. Everyone is just miraculously knocked out. ::)
Seems a perfect example a non-fatal Taken-out result that would fail the mandated reasonableness test by virtue of it being non-fatal.
-
Seems a perfect example a non-fatal Taken-out result that would fail the mandated reasonableness test by virtue of it being non-fatal.
True enough, but...i don't think a column of flame, a shotgun, or someone with supernatural strength can reasonably not kill (normal) people in most situtations.
Hence, every single table needs it's own rules.
Problem is, the system relies on too much opinion and common sense. Can't have every adjudication be a democracy, lest you have some long drawn out debates which lead to someone being unhappy anyhow. Any player or players could dead lock/rail road the DM into physics allowing some or all to live due to strange Ripley Believe it or Not events in real life.
Ergo, my example, at some tables would stand.
-
The way I see it unless you are doing a low fist/weapons or low discipline (magic) build most of the time you are in complete control of your actions so in the case of above superb/great to hit roll you can pretty much do as much harm as you want as you are in complete control of your blows (you can pull your punches without effecting stress because the fact that you could of hit with a fatal blow is enough to warrant the stress). The way I look at pulling your blows is also a weapons/fist/magic skill and a high skill should make you better at it not worse.
-
Additionally something to consider (along the same lines of stress being not equal to damage) is that consequences are a measure of someone's investment in the outcome of a conflict. If a mook has no consequences then does it mean that he is incapable of taking injury (consequences being injury rather than stress)? No, what it means is that he isn't willing to take injury in order to win. He gives up when it becomes obvious that he's losing and before he can get hurt. What makes this important is how it reflects on this particular conflict.
For example: The thug runs up with a pipe, ready to take this punk down, when suddenly the guy growls and throws a punch. It misses the thug narrowly (inflicting enough stress to take him out but dealing no consequence) smashing into a nearby dumpster and tearing a hole in the metal. The thug drops his pipe and goes "Screw this, I'm not paid enough to get hit by one of those."
See, the thug isn't invested enough to consider getting hurt. Does this mean that they can't be hurt or killed as part of the "take out"? Nope, just means that they didn't know the stakes when they decided to give up.
-
True enough, but...i don't think a column of flame, a shotgun, or someone with supernatural strength can reasonably not kill (normal) people in most situtations.
You can twist your ankle while dodging a column of flame, or a shotgun slug, or the blows of someone with supernatural strength. You can't very well justify a twisted ankle from being a passenger on a train that fell of the side of a cliff and then exploded.
-
The way I see it unless you are doing a low fist/weapons or low discipline (magic) build most of the time you are in complete control of your actions so in the case of above superb/great to hit roll you can pretty much do as much harm as you want as you are in complete control of your blows (you can pull your punches without effecting stress because the fact that you could of hit with a fatal blow is enough to warrant the stress). The way I look at pulling your blows is also a weapons/fist/magic skill and a high skill should make you better at it not worse.
I agree with this. I was going to make a comparison with Superman still being able to knock out street thugs even though he could potentially punch a building-sized monster and score a takeout. With the power comes the ability to control it, Barring special deals made with the GM, or apropriate Aspects (like "Uncontrolled strength", or "Don't know my own strength").
-
Yes, accidentally killing someone with a punch is a compel.
Accidentally killing someone with a truck bomb isn't. At least, not at my table.
Silverblaze's crazy example is crazy, but if it works at someone's table then it's fine. It's not going to work in any situation where the table doesn't want it to, so I see no problem.
Most people lack consequence tracks partly because they aren't that invested in the fight and partly because they just don't matter much.
Bear in mind that a guy with a full consequence track and all Average skills can survive being ambushed by a professional soldier with an assault rifle three times in a row, assuming average rolls.
Basically, people with full consequence tracks cannot be taken out in one hit. There are exceptions, but not many.
I agree with ways and means about the effects of skill, more or less. Hitting with a threshold of 8 should make you less likely to accidentally kill someone, not more.
It isn't unrealistic to survive a Supernaturally Strong face-punch, but it is a bit unlikely.
Huh, that was a disordered post. Hope you guys can extract meaning from it somehow anyway.
-
It isn't unrealistic to survive a Supernaturally Strong face-punch, but it is a bit unlikely.
The above is misleading, however, because it isn't really a question of whether getting punched in the face by godzilla is survivable, but whether godzilla attempting to punch you in the face (and having that attempt successfully result in a take-out) is survivable.
Just because stress was inflicted doesn't mean the attack 'landed', let alone 'landed' in the most damaging manner possible.
-
The thread title alone should have been a sufficient clue that the OP was in the wrong.
-
Considering that a thread nearly identical to this one has been cropping up at least once every few weeks for the past...however long I've been a member, here...
-
Considering that a thread nearly identical to this one has been cropping up at least once every few weeks for the past...however long I've been a member, here...
Mind you usual about magic and lawbreaking.
-
Mind you usual about magic and lawbreaking.
Which is really just incidental. The key issue is the same: who controls the results of a 'take-out', and what does 'hitting' with an attack actually mean?
-
I get where people are coming from, the point I'm trying to make is to drive home is what Harry says in the margin of Your Story.
Super-strength is no joke. In the comic books someone can get tossed around or battered by a guy who can bench press a car and not end up in traction. The truth is, if something supernaturally strong gets its hands on you — you’re dead.
Yes I realize this is very similar to the often asked question regarding magical use and law breaking, and I agree I should have compelled an aspect if the guy's death seemed the most "within the realm of reason" result. I'll also note that the fact that such questions come up a lot is a sign that it is something people often need help in...
As for "pulling one's punches" I understand completely, and if he had said before attacking that he wasn't intending to attack with something hard enough to kill then I would have asked him how much of his strength bonus he wanted to use. But when you punch as hard as hitting someone with a car and you are aiming for someone's face... there's a good chance there's gonna be grey matter to clean up. At the same time if you are trying to hold back then it's less likely you'll take them out. If you play with knives, someone's liable to end up cut... if you play with battlefield weaponry, someone's liable to end up dead.
Another aspect of this was the lack of any good story telling, if I said that the thug was taken out and he went on to give a narrative like sinker's example then everything's well and good, but when all I get is "I punch him in the face" and "No kill, just knocked out." then there's a disconnect between what's happening mechanically and a logical, reasonable conclusion to the exchange. If there's some explanation of how the stress is inflicted without the lethal attack landing I don't have a problem with it, but I need an explanation... I need to tell my players, "Help me tell our story in a way that makes sense."
That's an aspect I intend to tag at the start of our next session...
After all, to me it's not really a question of who's right and who's wrong, it's a question of "this is an area of our collective story-telling that is poor" and "how can we improve it?"
So, thanks for the suggestions for those that offered them, and meh to those just playing the blame game.
/.-, VV
-
If you are going to play it logical then the person with mythic strength kills the pure mortal pc if they hit, logically the power of a truck in a single persons fist is very likely to kill someone if it lands at all, but if the PC has consequences it won't kill them in fact it could cause as little harm as a small Bruise (minor consequence). If cause and effect logic doesn't apply during the fight then I don't see why it has to apply at the end of the fight, why does logic work for the blow that takes someone out but none of the ones before it. Stress isn't damage it is a near miss its the stress of not being hit so you wouldn't have to lower your stress bonus to pull your punch because being attacked by something that can crush your head in one blow is more stressful than something that can't even if the face crushing never actually happens.
-
Does having a higher result on your attack roll than the target's defense roll mean that descriptively your attack actually connects with the target?
My character attacks Jack's PC with a gun. I roll well and Jack does not, say I got upwards of 4 shifts. Does that mean that Jack's character takes a bullet between the eyes? Or can it mean that Jack's PC could have face planted himself on a metal lamp pole while diving behind cover to successfully avoid my PC's gun shots?
-
Jack's PC could have face planted himself on a metal lamp pole while diving behind cover to successfully avoid my PC's gun shots
This. Problem solved.
/thread
-
Does having a higher result on your attack roll than the target's defense roll mean that descriptively your attack actually connects with the target?
Not necessarily. Stress and consequences are narrative pacing tools more than anything else. The aspect gained from a consequence may well be damage...but it could be a twisted ankle from dodging as easily as a grazed calf from a close shot.
-
1. Tedronai is right about possible ways to narrate stuff. But the player here said he punched the guy in the face. Ergo, the guy's face probably got punched.
2. Weapon rating is a measure of weapon effectiveness, not physical force. Weapon 6 fists do not necessarily contain the same amount of force as a truck.
Let me demonstrate this with an example: a big sword with a stunt to boost stress can have a higher weapon rating than some cars. The car has more force, but the sword hurts more on account of being sharp, effectively wielded, and an actual weapon to boot.
3. I think that the right action in the example the OP provided was probably just to accept the action and move on. Here's why:
a) The player's narration may not have been terribly interesting, but it was at least vaguely plausible.
b) Him not using his Claws indicates that he's making concessions to avoid killing, so it'd be a touch churlish to make him kill someone anyway.
c) Slowing the game down by arguing a point like this is not likely to improve the story at all. It'll probably just make things less fun.
It sounds like the player attached no importance to the mook or the fight against him, and as such simply glossed over his defeat. Which is fine with me.
If it's not fine with you, I suggest you talk to him about it politely. Maybe say that you'd like to explore the humanity of mooks by treating them as people who matter or that you'd like to have more creative description of attacks and takeouts. Or something else, I dunno.
Point is, talking to the players is probably a better idea than talking to us. Chances are that the players would be glad to accommodate your desire to make the story better.
-
Does having a higher result on your attack roll than the target's defense roll mean that descriptively your attack actually connects with the target?
"when you roll the dice, if you match or exceed the difficulty, your character succeeds; if you don’t, your character fails."
"If the effort matches the target difficulty, it’s a success—but it generates no shifts.:when you roll the
dice, if you match or exceed the difficulty, your character succeeds; if you don’t, your character fails."
"When your character’s turn comes up in the exchange, describe what your character is doing in terms of one of the basic conflict actions. The basic conflict actions are: Attack: Roll against an opponent to try to inflict stress or consequences on him directly"
-----
My action is to punch you in the nose. If my result is at least a zero then I have succeeded in my action (i.e. punched you in the nose) inflicting 0 or more stress.
I don't see a lot of room for debate here.
Richard
-
My action is to punch you in the nose. If my result is at least a zero then I have succeeded in my action (i.e. punched you in the nose) inflicting 0 or more stress.
I don't see a lot of room for debate here.
Richard
My turn comes up. My character raises his rocket propelled grenade launcher, aims at your character's face, and fires. My roll nets 0 shifts, 'hitting', but only barely. Your character, a pure mortal, is as-yet uninjured (no consequences filled), and has 4 stress boxes, also as-yet unmarked. The attack deals somewhere between 4 and 6 stress (battlefield weaponry being 4+).
By your logic, your character should die. After all, they just took an RPG to the face.
Game mechanics, however, would seem to disagree, given that, at most, your character would be forced to take only a mild consequence, and possibly not even that.
But then, I think the problem comes in a fundamental misinterpretation of your third quote: '[...]describe what your character is doing in terms of one of the basic conflict actions. The basic conflict actions are:[...]'
You're describing what your character is doing as 'punching the target in the face', when you should be describing what your character is doing as merely 'attack' (plus whatever parameters are necessary to determine the rolls involved, ie. you're using fists, you're supernaturally strong) until after you know the results of the roll because: the defending player chooses their consequences so long as they pass a reasonableness test adjudicated by the table
-
My action is to punch you in the nose. If my result is at least a zero then I have succeeded in my action (i.e. punched you in the nose) inflicting 0 or more stress.
I don't see a lot of room for debate here.
Richard
I see. But that is assuming my action is to "punch you in the nose". If my action is to attack you with my Fists skill which is actually what is happening, then there is a lot of room for debate.
I think the crux of the matter here is you declared what the successful result of your action would be before the action is resolved. If you wish to do so, then you have forfeited your ability to choose the result after the action has resolved.
(And Tedronai has already answered that.)
-
My action is to punch you in the nose. If my result is at least a zero then I have succeeded in my action (i.e. punched you in the nose) inflicting 0 or more stress.
I don't see a lot of room for debate here.
It's successful as an attack which deals stress to the target. In other words, the mechanics succeeded. The narrative has as much room as the table desires to allow. After all, stress doesn't have to come from the end of someone's fist. :)
-
For the RPG-to-the-face... it doesn't have to be to the face. For a bare minimum success, it hits a nearby object, and the edge of the blast catches the target. Done and done.
For non-explosives (bare minimum success on an attack with a car) you clip the target, but don't flatten them.
I get where people are coming from, the point I'm trying to make is to drive home is what Harry says in the margin of Your Story.
/.-, VV
Ok... true... but:
1- that side margin is fluff, not rules.
2- it's meant to drive home the importance of supernatural strength... it'd be too easy otherwise for players to overlook it when magic barely costs any more.
3- it almost sounds like you're trying to punish players who choose it. If you really feel like Inhuman Strength should have these kinds of consequences, then I HIGHLY recommend that it cost less as well... otherwise, as that player, I'd feel targeted and seriously gipped.
For the same cost, I could get toughness or speed, with no risk, and reasonably as much reward...
If I ignore the might trappings of supernatural strength, I could use Martial Artist + Lethal Weapon to get the Weapon:2- and get the same combat bang for my buck... or a couple custom stunts that improve my Fists rolls directly (rather than grant Weapon rating)... at least a +2 there (same buck when I hit, probably more bang, since I also get the perk of missing far less often). Am I suddenly safe?
If so, I'd suggest that you rethink things a bit. It seems a bit of a double-standard.
Am I still more lethal than I intend?
If so, I'd suggest talking to your players about having a more lethal campaign. If everyone's on board, then you're good to go. Simply make "Life's short" a story aspect, and compel that whenever you feel it's appropriate. The players can still refuse (if they have FP to do so), and it very neatly solves your problem... but don't spring it on your players or try to force anything.
-
You're describing what your character is doing as 'punching the target in the face', when you should be describing what your character is doing as merely 'attack' (plus whatever parameters are necessary to determine the rolls involved, ie. you're using fists, you're supernaturally strong) until after you know the results of the roll because: the defending player chooses their consequences so long as they pass a reasonableness test adjudicated by the table
Two things:
First, you are talking about how the defending player deals with stress (choosing consequences) and not the action that causes stress.
Second, I'll bundle that point with the next quote.
I see. But that is assuming my action is to "punch you in the nose". If my action is to attack you with my Fists skill which is actually what is happening, then there is a lot of room for debate.
You would say "my action is to attack with my Fists skill"? Really? How does that add to the narrative that is being constructed here? We aren't talking about D&D where you say "I attack with my sword and roll 13, plus my base attack, strenght, Feat A, Feat B, to make it a 48 - does that hit?". The Dresden role playing game is about building a narrative that describes what is happening - not merely talking about which skill you attack with.
Regardless, the OP contains the words:
the player describes punching the thug in the face
In other words, he added to the narrative by describing what he was doing, not just going "I attack and roll - what happens?".
Richard
-
You would say "my action is to attack with my Fists skill"? Really? How does that add to the narrative that is being constructed here? Richard
I would definately go for a narrative description of the attack. As long as it just causes stress, it does not really matter. If the target chooses to take a consequence, then it is up to him to decide what that consequence is, more or less regardless of the description of the attack (as long as it is relatively appropriate and approved by the GM).
-
I'd suggest pre-roll narrative is simply a desired action. Doesn't mean it happens as narrated with a simple success - after all, there is more than one actor in the exchange. The actual event results are post roll resolution.
-
You would say "my action is to attack with my Fists skill"? Really? How does that add to the narrative that is being constructed here?
To be honest: I would. The narrative is added when the roll is finalized. Let's look at it the other way around: The character rolls a +2, while the thug dodges with a +6. Does the players "I punch him in the face" announcement still apply?
I would look at it more like this:
"I punch him"...*roll*...*roll*..."right in the face, rendering him unconscious."
or
"I punch him"...*roll*...*roll*..."right in the face with my supernatural strength, killing him were he stands."
or
"I punch him"...*roll*...*roll*...", but he is too quick and I ram my fist into the wall behind him."
Still a lot of narrative, but it fits the result of the roll a lot better this way around.
-
Sort of takes out the possibility of aiming for a body part if you can't dictate the result of your roll to a certain degree before hand...no?
-
In my game we've started rolling, then narrating. That way you know the final outcome and can work the degree of success as well as tagged/invoked Aspects into the description. It also obviates the problem at hand: if the player with supernatural strength determines the level of success before narrating the action he can simply enact less lethal actions.
-
I think the crux of the matter here is you declared what the successful result of your action would be before the action is resolved. If you wish to do so, then you have forfeited your ability to choose the result after the action has resolved.
(And Tedronai has already answered that.)
It's more than that, though, because, as the attacker, you don't actually get to solely determine the results of a 'successful' attack unless that attack results in a take-out. You are, in fact, the minority voice in those negotiations.
-
Sort of takes out the possibility of aiming for a body part if you can't dictate the result of your roll to a certain degree before hand...no?
I'd say that's what maneuvers and declarations are for, in most cases. If aiming for a specific bodypart in order to do something special, a fate point would probably be a good idea as well, since certain aspects (pun intended) of the human body are simply facts, that you can then exploit, but it would be kind of silly to declare "nose" on every human you fight for a free tag.
-
Need to declare 'groin' on all male enemies in a fist fight in future.
-
Need to declare 'groin' on all male enemies in a fist fight in future.
I think that'd only be available as a take out result if you're going for any sort of realism. Grounds for that: the effect of a successful attack landing there and the fact that it can be reflexively defended effectively even by someone who's never been in a fight in their life.
It could be a maneuver designed to pass a fragile free tag to anyone else handy though. It does tend to instinctively focus one's defences in one area to the detriment of defending other vulnerable areas.
-
1. Tedronai is right about possible ways to narrate stuff.
[cut for brevity's sake]
Chances are that the players would be glad to accommodate your desire to make the story better.
Damn your Vulcan logic.
-
I kick him in the groin and - roll, roll - miss. (failure)
I kick him in the groin and - roll, roll - he shifts his leg, taking the blow on his thigh. (minor success - 0 or more stress)
I kick him in the groin and - roll, roll - his eyes go wide as he tries to fight through the pain (mild consequence of sore balls).
I kick him in the groin and - roll, roll - he screams in pain, then brings his fist up in rage (moderate consequence of aching balls).
I kick him in the groin and - roll, roll - his face goes white as he battles through the shock (severe consequence of ruptured balls).
I kick him in the groin and - roll, roll - he'll never father another child (extreme consequence of eunuch).
The first part can be said before the roll, the second only after the results are determined, and thus the combat is narrated. That works for me...
I could see someone doing a social attack to tag the kicker as "a dirty fighter", but that's not part of the combat result.
Richard
-
Alright VVolf, I think I see the issue. It seems to me that you have a player (or players) who may not understand the nuances of the system, and you're trying to teach him (or them) by negatively reinforcing "incorrect" actions. This can work, however it's definitely not the best way to teach and it can lead to some sore feelings.
What I would suggest is that you sit down with your players and explain to them that in DFRPG the narrative can effect the mechanics and that part of the narrative is theirs. Encourage them to use this power effectively and for the good of the table. Tell them to have fun with it. Explain the abstract concepts that are stress, consequence, and the take out. Help them make the game that you want together. Everyone will really appreciate your guidance.
As for the current discussion, I would think that kicking someone "in the groin" or "in the face" is actually impossible with the mechanics as is. If you kick someone "in the groin" they are the ones who decide what consequences they take. What if you kick me "in the groin" and I decide I take a bruise to my face (mild consequence)? It's perfectly RAW and you (the person who kicked me) can't argue. The defender's fate is entirely their own until they have been taken out. I would think that the better way to deal with that would be to simply kick them or kick "at the groin" or even better "I wind up for a tremendous upward sweeping kick that should go right between his legs!"
-
I kick him in the groin and - roll, roll - miss. (failure)
I kick him in the groin and - roll, roll - he shifts his leg, taking the blow on his thigh. (minor success - 0 or more stress)
I kick him in the groin and - roll, roll - his eyes go wide as he tries to fight through the pain (mild consequence of sore balls).
I kick him in the groin and - roll, roll - he screams in pain, then brings his fist up in rage (moderate consequence of aching balls).
I kick him in the groin and - roll, roll - his face goes white as he battles through the shock (severe consequence of ruptured balls).
I kick him in the groin and - roll, roll - he'll never father another child (extreme consequence of eunuch).
The first part can be said before the roll, the second only after the results are determined, and thus the combat is narrated. That works for me...
I could see someone doing a social attack to tag the kicker as "a dirty fighter", but that's not part of the combat result.
Richard
Unless the defending player decides to take different consequences. In which case it could be a Mild 'bruised hip' as he turns to block your strike, or a Moderate 'there goes the skin off my hands' as he dives into gravel to avoid your strike, etc.
See above re: the attacker doesn't actually control the results.
-
Unless the defending player decides to take different consequences. In which case it could be a Mild 'bruised hip' as he turns to block your strike, or a Moderate 'there goes the skin off my hands' as he dives into gravel to avoid your strike, etc.
See above re: the attacker doesn't actually control the results.
Did you read the part where I said:
"the second only after the results are determined, and thus the combat is narrated."
Did I say that the attacker determined the result? No, only that the second part can't be included in the narrative until after the results are determined.
If my action is to punch you in the face then that is my action. If my action is to kick you in the nuts then that is my action. If my action fails then my action fails. If my action succeeds and do little damage than I might have only struck a glancing blow.
Which makes for a much more narrative combat than:
Player 1: "I use Fist to maneuver and put a tag on him. Roll... It works."
Player 2: "I use Fist to maneuver and put a tag on him. Roll... It works."
Player 3: "I do a Fists attack and, if necessary, tag those two temporary aspects."
Where is the narrative in that?
Of course one of the problems is that the combat system isn't all that realistic. Realistically, if I was standing three feet behind someone (who isn't wearing body armour) and fire a shotgun into his back that person is out of the combat. Especially if I'm doing with surprise. From that distances there's no way the average person can miss the central mass and take the target down.
In DFRPG, assuming that I have Good skill and Weapon 3 Shotgun and that the surprised PC target doesn't get a defensive the most I can inflict is 10 stress - which is a Mild and Serious. Of course if he's a "no consequences" goon then he's down but against a PC I'd still have a fight on my hands.
Richard
-
If my action is to punch you in the face then that is my action. If my action is to kick you in the nuts then that is my action. If my action fails then my action fails. If my action succeeds and do little damage than I might have only struck a glancing blow.
Or you might have missed entirely, but managed to cause harm in some other way, such as by forcing the target to harm themselves in an attempt to avoid your attack. And that's the point I've been trying to get across. Or your attack might have 'succeeded' but failed to inflict any consequences, which could more easily be narrated as having been successfully dodged than it could as having landed to no noticeable effect (see: inhuman+ str vs pure mortal)
You action (before stress and consequences are determined) is not to punch the target in the face, but, at most, to attempt to punch the target in the face.
-
You would say "my action is to attack with my Fists skill"? Really? How does that add to the narrative that is being constructed here?
Why not? Really? How does that not add to the narrative that is being constructed here? It gives the author of the action more freedom over the narrative result of his action after he knows whether the action succeeds or fails.
-
Did you read the part where I said:
"the second only after the results are determined, and thus the combat is narrated."
Did I say that the attacker determined the result? No, only that the second part can't be included in the narrative until after the results are determined.
The problem that I see is the second half is not yours to narrate. You declare the intent of your action and roll to see it's outcome, however that process only determines whether your action was successful or not successful. How it succeeds is then in the hands of the defender. Even whether or not you take out the defender is ultimately in the defender's hands (unless the defender no longer has any available consequences).
If you shoot at my back with a shotgun I determine whether you hit or not. Regardless of how you feel about it, it's RAW.
-
The problem that I see is the second half is not yours to narrate. You declare the intent of your action and roll to see it's outcome, however that process only determines whether your action was successful or not successful. How it succeeds is then in the hands of the defender. Even whether or not you take out the defender is ultimately in the defender's hands (unless the defender no longer has any available consequences).
Again:
"the second only after the results are determined, and thus the combat is narrated."
Where do I say that the attacking player determines the result by his lonesome?
Richard
-
Perhaps it's a misinterpretation, but it would seem to be implied by stating that your action is to punch someone in the face that you control whether or not you punch someone in the face (subject only to the dice).
-
Perhaps it's a misinterpretation, but it would seem to be implied by stating that your action is to punch someone in the face that you control whether or not you punch someone in the face (subject only to the dice).
A PC takes an action. The dice say if the action succeeds.
I believe we've talked this subject to death - and since neither of us seem to shifting in our views perhaps it's time we moved on to other topics.
Richard
-
Alright VVolf, I think I see the issue. It seems to me that you have a player (or players) who may not understand the nuances of the system, and you're trying to teach him (or them) by negatively reinforcing "incorrect" actions. This can work, however it's definitely not the best way to teach and it can lead to some sore feelings.
Partially yes and partially no, another point of this is that I'm trying to keep the other players from feeling as though they are unimportant in combat.
What I would suggest is that you sit down with your players and explain to them that in DFRPG the narrative can effect the mechanics and that part of the narrative is theirs. Encourage them to use this power effectively and for the good of the table. Tell them to have fun with it. Explain the abstract concepts that are stress, consequence, and the take out. Help them make the game that you want together. Everyone will really appreciate your guidance.
As I mentioned earlier, I fully intend to have a talk with my players at the start of the next session. I intend to both apologize for the quadriplegic bit and explain the abstract concepts, but also warn them that there needs to be logical flow from declared attack and desired result and give an example of a successful attack which doesn't actually connect. I'll also mention that he's free to pull his punches with supernatural strength to reduce the additional shifts if the character wants to hold back, as well as a warning that full-tilt attacks are going to be more likely to draw lethal-hit compels.
/.-, VV
-
If Strength powers in your game come automatically with these risks, what are you giving the player that makes up for that? You are, truthfully, springing it on him after he's already paid for the power. He may not want it anymore, when for the same point cost, he could come up with other helpful, risk-free options.
-
Make sure you are hitting the wizard slinging around power 4 attacks spells with the same sort of compels if that is the method you decide to use.
-
Make sure you are hitting the wizard slinging around power 4 attacks spells with the same sort of compels if that is the method you decide to use.
Indeed. This is beginning to sound like an earlier thread when we discussed whether or not attacks above a particular damage index were, by definition, automatically lethal, or if the player retains the narrative choice.
The most elegant way to force a player to take the gloves off and agree that their attack causes lethal damage would be (as someone has probably already proposed) to compel an Aspect of theirs - either an existing Aspect, like Hot-Blooded, or a Maneuvered Aspect, like "Irrationally Angry." Setting a bar based on weapon damage is open to too much debate.
-
Yeah, sounds like you're pretty much on top of this, but I thought I'd remind you that a compel is a function of the aspect, and without an appropriate aspect you can't compel (just as no one can invoke if they don't have an appropriate aspect).
A solution to this is to simply add a "Theme" of sorts that represents the lethality that you feel should be represented. I once ran a one-shot (Night fears actually) with the Theme of "In real life people get hurt" and I thought it definitely kept the atmosphere I was looking for. Keep in mind though that the themes and threats are very much part of the process for determining what each person wants from the game, so make sure that your table is ok with adding such an aspect.
-
so make sure that your table is ok with adding such an aspect.
It probably shouldn't need to be said, but the continued re-emergence of these threads trying to 'force' a particular individual's view of 'realism' on the rest of the group...
That isn't the game they signed up for, and it isn't the game they built their characters for.
You might need to give them the opportunity to re-work their characters for the new game environment, or even start from scratch with an entirely new game featuring that aspect.
And, if they still wouldn't be ok with adding such an aspect, then don't do it.
Because it's their game, too.
-
What he said. Seconded, carried, brought to vote and passed.
If this is a change you're making for Strength powers only, it makes no sense AND it targets a specific player at the table.
If it's a change to the whole campaign, fine- great even- but GM or not, it's not JUST your decision. Trust me- I've run into that problem myself on occasion- I think every GM has at some point.
-
What he said. Seconded, carried, brought to vote and passed.
If this is a change you're making for Strength powers only, it makes no sense AND it targets a specific player at the table.
If it's a change to the whole campaign, fine- great even- but GM or not, it's not JUST your decision. Trust me- I've run into that problem myself on occasion- I think every GM has at some point.
Not me. I rule with an iron fist and a big bag of STFU. Of course I'm usually not fanatically convinced I'm right either. When I am though, my way or the 5 bazillion stress lightning bolt from the heavens way!
-
We finally learn why the name Buzzard is prefaced by Mighty.
-
Thor, Zeus, they got nothin on me, baby.