ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Wordmaker on June 26, 2013, 04:20:15 PM
-
This came up recently at my table, when I had an NPC concede during a fight.
The question raised by my group was when can concessions be made?
The way I've been running them is that they can be made any point before the dice roll that takes them out, as it says on pg. 206 of YS. In the session this happened, an NPC was clearly losing the fight and I wanted to get him out of it before the players killed him. So when it came around to the player who was fighting him, before the player rolled, I conceded. There was some disagreement about whether or not this was fair.
Some players argue that concessions have to happen on the NPC's turn, while others say having them happen on the NPC's turn isn't fair.
Personally, I've always thought concessions were meant to happen right before an attacker rolls their dice, so it's the choice between taking a sure way out of being killed/captured, and taking the risk to see how the dice roll.
Based on a reading of the rules, it seems that, aside from the fact you can't concede after an attack roll that would take you out, you can concede whether you like.
-
You can concede ANY time. But yes, you should choose to concede before any dice are rolled because it seems unfair to wait to see if you can defend against an attack and then, when you find out you can't, choose to concede instead of taking stress/consequences. You could immediately concede after that attack, if it didn't take you out, even.
It doesn't have to be on your turn.
Thematically, maybe the player hit the NPC and knocked him over the side of a cliff or out a window and the PC's can't find him or knocked him unconscious...the problem with the last one is they can always choose to kill him later...which isn't a great concession.
In other words, I'm backing your adjudication, Wordmaker.
-
Concessions should happen before the roll. More importantly, concessions are negotiated...and, as a negotiation, don't have to be accepted.
In other words you'll generally need to make sure you're giving up something material with the concession and not simply using it as an escape hatch.
-
Yeah, had this argument recently as well, with a player who didn't think the dice roll matters.
Concessions can happen ANY time, except after a roll has taken place. Can't dodge an attack after the fact. Typically though, I like to make them just after taking damage, or when a certain condition is met (e.g. the second a fight looks unwinable from the NPCs perspective) - seems kind of munchkiny to do it just before the PC attacks. The only in charactor reason I could see for this is if the 'condition' being met is any of his attackers paying any attention to him.
-
Cool. Just wanted to make sure I was doing it right.
I do try to keep concessions making sense. If I concede just before a PC attacks, then I go for a concession that includes their attack.
-
In the session this happened, an NPC was clearly losing the fight and I wanted to get him out of it before the players killed him. So when it came around to the player who was fighting him, before the player rolled, I conceded. There was some disagreement about whether or not this was fair.
Hold on, what?
If your group didn't like the terms of the concession, why did they accept it?
Or did you just concede unilaterally, without asking the group? Because that's not legal at all.
-
No, initially there was opposition, but it was to the timing of the concession, not the concession itself.
-
Not sure what the problem is, then.
If they don't like concessions that happen at odd times, they can just not accept them.
-
It was more that a couple of players thought I was breaking the rules by allowing concessions to happen at certain times. That's why I wanted to make sure I was reading the rules right.
-
I thought that players couldn't flat-out reject concessions and go to the taking out. Because that would mean that if a monster wants them dead, and they try to concede to stay alive, the monster can just say no. And kill them. So the same courtesy would then apply if the players were winning and the monster wants to concede before he dies.
Or am I missing something here?
-
It's a negotiation. I don't think it's fair play for player to reject concessions out-right. They should negotiate and come to a compromise.
Concessions aren't a "get out of jail free" card. They still have to hurt but they don't have to hurt in the exact way the enemy wants.
-
Exactly. Rejecting them just to get away with killing someone is as bad as trying to use them just to avoid something bad happening to you.
-
It's a negotiation. I don't think it's fair play for player to reject concessions out-right. They should negotiate and come to a compromise.
Concessions aren't a "get out of jail free" card. They still have to hurt but they don't have to hurt in the exact way the enemy wants.
This. So much this.
I remember reading in another thread a post along the lines of "I just read the concession rules, and none of my BBEGs will ever be killed by players again nyahaha..."
Personally, I think using concessions as a form of blanket death immunity that many DMs seem to be so fond of is lame. Preventing premature demise is fine, but cheating someone out of their climax during the final showdown feels kinda wrong. Also, when the players take the time to set up a 40+ shift on an NPC, that concession better be pretty sweet. In my experience, most concessions go along these lines "The BBEG escapes, wounded but with no meaningful permanent harm and his/her evil plan is foiled. For now." This, in my opinion, is not how a concession should be, especially if killing said NPC would achieve the same outcome. It is, essentially, a rip-off, since one side clearly loses more with accepting it. The concession needs to offer something of comparable value.
-
The one thing I'd add though, is that sometimes, the story gains more by having a recurring villain than by killing off a villain at their first defeat, only to have a new, less meaningful villain show up for the next adventure.
-
Thematically, maybe the player hit the NPC and knocked him over the side of a cliff or out a window and the PC's can't find him or knocked him unconscious...the problem with the last one is they can always choose to kill him later...which isn't a great concession.
Presumably that would be included in the negotiations--"The villain gets knocked out, and STUFF happens so that you don't kill him right away."
But yeah, I agree, so long as the concession happens before the dice are rolled, it should be kosher.
That said, it's also kosher for the players not to accept a concession if they don't feel it's strong enough--but rejecting a concession can be a risk in itself. I've had it happen where a couple times the players accepted a villain's concession because even though he was wounded, the villain still had enough power to cause serious damage to the PCs if they tried to force a Taken Out.
-
I thought that players couldn't flat-out reject concessions and go to the taking out. Because that would mean that if a monster wants them dead, and they try to concede to stay alive, the monster can just say no. And kill them. So the same courtesy would then apply if the players were winning and the monster wants to concede before he dies.
Or am I missing something here?
Yes.
The monster gets no say. The PCs don't either.
Because they're fictional.
Concessions are between the people playing the game, not the characters in the game.
-
Sanctaphrax and Mr. Death have the right of it.
Concessions are metagame events, and are not necessarily even visible to the characters involved (though they might sometimes be if, for instance, the character themself literally concedes as part of the Concession).
Refusing a Concession is entirely allowable if the player (or GM) having it offered to them feels that it is too lenient.
Concessions may be offered up to the point where dice have been rolled. They become available again if that roll is fully resolved without the relevant character being Taken Out.
-
I thought that players couldn't flat-out reject concessions and go to the taking out. Because that would mean that if a monster wants them dead, and they try to concede to stay alive, the monster can just say no. And kill them. So the same courtesy would then apply if the players were winning and the monster wants to concede before he dies.
Or am I missing something here?
They can...and you're not missing anything. I believe the book recommends letting the players know (in character or not) when the NPC intends to kill, but that is certainly an option.
Of course rejecting concessions in favor of killing is not a particularly smart thing to do in most cases. There are laws against that sort of thing after all...in both mortal and supernatural cultures. There's going to be a price to pay for killing. Make sure that's clear - the characters are operating within at least two larger cultures, bending the rules too severely will bite you.
-
I find that conceding before it's clear to they players that they've won is usually a good idea. Concede when you've still got something in your back pocket, still have the cards in your hand, etc.
-
You can also use Concession and the negotiation process in order to gain an advantage. For example, if you offer to Concede but your terms are not acceptable, you may be able to deduce certain clues as to what the GM/NPC wants. In fact, you can deliberately offer a Concession you know will be rejected in order to gain such an advantage.
-
You can also use Concession and the negotiation process in order to gain an advantage. For example, if you offer to Concede but your terms are not acceptable, you may be able to deduce certain clues as to what the GM/NPC wants. In fact, you can deliberately offer a Concession you know will be rejected in order to gain such an advantage.
That's way too meta for my games. The goal is to tell good stories, not "win." Concessions are between players and GMs, not characters. So that would be using OOC knowledge to leverage information and be heavily frowned upon at my table.
-
Doesn't really work anyway. Assuming you don't know what the character wants already (In which case why are you fighting a random stranger?) all I'd say as GM is "That's not even a reasonable starting point for negotiation. You can try again, meanwhile we're moving on."
More realistically, not knowing something as basic as goals was cause for either social conflict to find out or research.
-
We're pretty open with character goals in my group, at least as far as combat is concerned. I'm trying to wean my players off the "we have to win" mindset.
-
We're pretty open with character goals in my group, at least as far as combat is concerned. I'm trying to wean my players off the "we have to win" mindset.
Any tips? :P
-
Mostly talk to your players. It takes time to get out of the mindset, especially if they're used to games where they're expected to try to win as quickly and easily as possible.
Concessions and compels are the key with FATE. Encourage them to enjoy both success and failure. Remind them that if a fight's not going their way, they can always concede and avoid capture or death.
Of course, when they start getting into it, they're putting their trust in you as the GM. So be open about your intentions. Let them know when a fight is to the death or not. If you say a particular villain isn't trying to kill them in a fight, don't go back on that. Tactics like tricking the players into getting themselves in trouble or the like are also right out.
-
It really depends on the individual's idea of "winning". If the player's idea of winning is being able to collectively tell a good story, then it may also well depend on the individual's idea of a "good" story. While my character succeeding in his endeavours all the time is a good story to me, but it is not likely to be the same for you.
But really the part of gaining information via negotiation isn't really so much about winning, it is more about getting ahead. It is not about failure, it is about degrees of success. If a fight is not going my character's way, I will still use the opportunity to gain some degree of success from it. I can find out what kind of attacks my attackers favor, what are their motivations and who is behind them, all sorts of information can be gained.
Maybe the attackers just want the thingamajig and my character is simply in the way, maybe as part of the concession, my character can plant a Batsignal on the McGuffin or in order that I concede and they get their objective, the GM makes an Evil Villian (TM) monologue. And if the attackers want my character dead, then I as a player know "Death is on the cards" and I can tag it to my PC's benefit.
In fact, I can choose for my PC to "lose" or at least allow the NPCs their "win". Some gangsters come looking for my character. I do not know why they are here. Do they want to "teach the punk a lesson" or "give him a pair of cement shoes"? I do not know. So I offer to Concede. What the GM does, whether he accepts or not tells me something. And I can try to keep my character's powers hidden along the way. Say the gangsters are going to be satisfied by just beating my character up, I might not have my PC go Supernatural Strength and Toughness on their punk asses. The GM's villain might not know my character is Dr Donald Blake and my character could go Mjolnir to his face, so I am not going to give the GM that excuse.
-
Well one of the core ideas behind the FATE system is that both success and failure should be interesting and further the plot, so ideally, all groups should be doing what you describe.
If a failure simply stalls the plot, it's boring. If it provides a clue or helps heighten the tension (like the heroes concede and as part of that, their friend is taken by the villains), then it's good.