Concessions

[Sanctaphrax]

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.

[Tedronai]

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.

[UmbraLux]

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.

[InFerrumVeritas]

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. 

[toturi]

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.

[InFerrumVeritas]

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.

[UmbraLux]

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.

[Wordmaker]

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.

[PirateJack]

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?

[Wordmaker]

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.

[toturi]

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.

[Wordmaker]

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.