Shifts to Stress - optional or not ?

[Michael,HandofGod]

Not so. Stress != damage. A high weapons character could just be doing fancy moves, and backing their opponent into a corner. A skilled gunman might just be shooting where the target was about to be, thus discouraging them from moving. In either case, the taken out result is they surrender, since they know they are outclasses and out gunned.

The ghoul's slash that just missed Dresden's face? That's stress. When Harry got shot, that's a consequence. Per YS197, ". Each party accumulates gradual success, affecting their opponents in a momentary (resulting in stress) or lasting (resulting  in  a  consequence) way."

To address the OP, it's really up to the table to decide. If more of the table agree it's B, then so be it. If more people agree with the GM, than it's A.

I'd say sit down and talk it out with your group.

-EF

Gotta disagree here.  Maybe I'm misremembering, but I'm pretty sure that a slash 'narrowly missing' someone's face would not count as stress.  I was under the impression that stress was damage.

I find myself torn in this conflict.  On the one hand, it seems unfair to reward a good roll with such a potentially bad result.  On the other, it is unrealistic to suppose that someone can shoot and throw fireballs at people with the knowledge that they will never, ever kill someone unless they don't want to.

One potential idea for a homebrew solution is to impose some sort of 'kill-line.'  If someone is taken out with physical stress, but by under a certain margin (less than double their max stress, maybe?) the player can choose whether they die or are knocked unconscious or what have you.  If the stress exceeds that margin, though...death may ensue.

Of course, that only answers the specific issue of how to deal with attacks that can kill people.  There is still the issue of what to do with extra stress.  It seems like Overflow (YS, 213-214) could help deal with this.  It states that if a player accidentally (this specifically does not apply when such a high number has been deliberately achieved with fate points) gets a large surplus of success, higher than they need to complete the task they declared, they can devote the surplus shifts of success to a second, not directly offensive action.  The example it gives is Michael defeating a demon with a six shift attack when he only needs three.  He uses three as surplus and uses it to sprint out of the collapsing temple.

Now, the obvious issue of how exactly Michael's player would know exactly how much stress he needed to take out the demon, this would seem to answer some of our questions, wouldn't it?

[Kordeth]

Gotta disagree here.  Maybe I'm misremembering, but I'm pretty sure that a slash 'narrowly missing' someone's face would not count as stress.  I was under the impression that stress was damage.

Nope. From YS201:

The best way to look at stress is that it’s the closest of close calls. That left hook might not take your character out of the fight, but his knees wobble a bit. Your character might have parried that sword blow, but he’s losing momentum and getting tired. That bullet might not have hit your character, but he’s agitated, and one of these times he just isn’t going to be able to hit the deck quickly enough. This outlook can help you represent stress in the face of different sources of harm.

I find myself torn in this conflict.  On the one hand, it seems unfair to reward a good roll with such a potentially bad result.  On the other, it is unrealistic to suppose that someone can shoot and throw fireballs at people with the knowledge that they will never, ever kill someone unless they don't want to.

There's one very, very important distinction people are forgetting here: The character does not know they will never, ever kill someone unless they don't want to. The player knows that the character will not kill anyone unless the player wants that to happen. Characters in the game should be cautious about using lethal force; the fact that the player gets to choose whether that force turns out to be lethal or not shouldn't change the character's behavior, just like they should be cautious about rushing headlong into life-or-death situations even though the player knows that the worst outcome will be a crumpled character sheet tossed in the trash and a new PC joining the group later.

One potential idea for a homebrew solution is to impose some sort of 'kill-line.'  If someone is taken out with physical stress, but by under a certain margin (less than double their max stress, maybe?) the player can choose whether they die or are knocked unconscious or what have you.  If the stress exceeds that margin, though...death may ensue.

That seems heavy-handed and arbitrary when compared to the tools a GM already has to make trigger-happy players cautious about employing excessive force. Off the top of my head:

1) Taken Out negotiations: "Not immediately dead" is not the same as "knocked out like bad guys in an episode of The A-Team." The GM is well within his rights to say "okay, he's not dead, but he's critically injured and will spend months in the hospital and won't be any help to you on this case for at least a couple of weeks."

2) Aspect compels: Either character aspects that hint at bloodthirstiness/lack of control or aspects on the taken out guy--hell, even his consequences could work ("I dunno, he took a Sucking Chest Wound on that last shot; you're not sure he's going to make it.")

3) Concession: Remember, it's not the character who decides the result, it's the player (or the GM). If players are really going overboard slinging deadly weapons around and declaring that their taken out victims are just downed with flesh wounds, have them start conceding and offering death as the terms.

Of course, that only answers the specific issue of how to deal with attacks that can kill people.  There is still the issue of what to do with extra stress.  It seems like Overflow (YS, 213-214) could help deal with this.  It states that if a player accidentally (this specifically does not apply when such a high number has been deliberately achieved with fate points) gets a large surplus of success, higher than they need to complete the task they declared, they can devote the surplus shifts of success to a second, not directly offensive action.  The example it gives is Michael defeating a demon with a six shift attack when he only needs three.  He uses three as surplus and uses it to sprint out of the collapsing temple.

Given that the goal of conflicts is to get the other guy to concede or be taken out, and given that those terms are whatever you define them to be, I see no reason to make death a result of the quantity of stress inflicted and thus see no reason why you'd ever want to minimize stress inflicted. If you're trying to capture a bad guy for questioning, describe your attacks accordingly--a good GM will make the terms of any concessions or consequences reflect that. Sparring with your pal? Declare that that's your intention and set the terms of a take-out or concession as "I acknowledge that you won the match" and concede after minor consequences.

Now, the obvious issue of how exactly Michael's player would know exactly how much stress he needed to take out the demon, this would seem to answer some of our questions, wouldn't it?

Presumably after the attack landed the GM said "you've got three extra shifts from that take-out. Want to do anything with them?

[Belial666]

Hey, I'm a wizard that does a weapons-10, 4-zone megablast to pancake that building. Can I say that everybody inside only gets knocked out? Even better, can I say that all the evil vampires get flattened while the physically weaker and already abused hostages survive?

Narrating results has to make sense.

[CMEast]

The example it gives is Michael defeating a demon with a six shift attack when he only needs three.  He uses three as surplus and uses it to sprint out of the collapsing temple.

Remember that the numbers can be narrated in a number of ways, it could be one attack dealing 6 stress, two attacks causing 3 stress, four attacks of 1 stress with a final 2 stress blow etc. If the demon has been taken out, Michael probably wouldn't keep swinging his sword at the dead body (though some other characters might).

In the same way, if my character uses fists to deal 8 shifts of stress to a thug on a lucky roll, it wasn't one punch that landed with all the force of a grenade, it was a cleverly coordinated flurry of blows and if the target KO's after 2 shifts my character won't pound away at the unconscious body if he hadn't planned to kill the guy. Of course, if there was good reason for killing him, the GM might compel a suitable aspect that makes me want to kill him, or if I'd been warned against attacking the character, the GM could rule the target's neck broke in the fall or whatever.

It's all about story really, you can't knock a guy out with a knife unless you are attacking with the hilt only, in which case you might lose your knife related stunt or even take a -4 penalty for it being an improvised weapon. Similarly, while people have walked away from grenades with concussions, you can't really throw grenades in such a way that it guarantees a non-lethal result.

[Papa Gruff]

I might have found a solution to the problem that I'd like to hear your take on. It came to me just half an hour ago and it's not fully thought through, nor is it tested or anything. Basically the problem is that to many shifts may be created to merit lets say a incapacitating take out, yes?

As a matter of fact there are rules about how to handle extra shifts. Take a look at YW 312 and the extra shifts section. I think it could apply. It even would be an elegant way to represent the difficulty of getting to a takeout through application of raw force. To get to an KO take out through an Attack Action, the player might have to generate more shifts on his attack roll, as it is generally more difficult to knock somebody out then crack some bones. If he fails to reach the required level of shifts, then he fails in pulling of the desired effect.

I don't know if I managed to communicate the idea correctly so I'll try an example:

William the Vampire Slayer wants to knock out a mook who is guarding the warehouse he'd like to get in quietly. Will is a tough guy with inhuman strength and stalks up to his target without a problem. His player Jon declares that he only wants to knock out the guy with an incapacitating blow to the neck. The GM decides that this is probably more difficult then just hiting him with all the force Will could muster and that he might seriously hurt the guy if he isn't really careful, meaning, that he has to generate at least three extra shifts to pull the attack of in this way. The GM also declares that, if the extra shift's aren't created through the attack roll, then the take out is likely not to be as desired.
Jon is fine with that and rolls weapons, which Will has on good, using a rusty pipe he found (Weapon:1). The roll is neither good nor bad 0 + - 0. The mook rolls his defense with endurance or athletics (both only average) and gets a bad result - - - +. His roll is poor -1. The required extra shifts are generated: Good vs Poor = 5. The KO is effective.

I'm pretty sure you guys can come up with a negative example yourself...

If we use the extra shifts rules this way, we can basically get all we'd like to have. A high attack skill will make it pretty sure that you can control your power. There is still the possibility that it might go wrong, yet it is slight enough to make attacking this way a valid choice. It goes without saying that the narration of the attack and it's outcome still have to be within the realm of reason, same as that the GM has always the final word, especially on how many extra shifts have to be generated by the attack.

Note that it only gets decided by the extra shifts that are generated by the comparison of Offense and Defense Roll. This is not yet stress, where weapons or inhuman strength apply. This is only about Skill.

I hope that I was able to communicate the idea. As you guys perhaps know by now, I'm not native to this language .

[CMEast]

Your English is great Papa Gruff, better than many native speakers' attempts.

The idea is also pretty great, I like that it takes more control to achieve a non-lethal take out but how do you determine how much it takes to knock someone out? Is it three additional shifts like a manoeuvre? Or is it +1 for difficulty and +2 for trying to create a mild consequence? Does it take in to account the targets stress track already?

[Papa Gruff]

The idea is also pretty great, I like that it takes more control to achieve a non-lethal take out but how do you determine how much it takes to knock someone out? Is it three additional shifts like a manoeuvre? Or is it +1 for difficulty and +2 for trying to create a mild consequence? Does it take in to account the targets stress track already?

I'd say it's up to the GM to decide together with the group how many shifts are appropriate for the given action. Still a lot should be taken into account, for example the kind of weapon that gets used (if any), or the general circumstances that are given in the scene. Three shifts seems not to much though. If we consult the extra shifts box YW 312 that's like a serious success.

[Kordeth]

Hey, I'm a wizard that does a weapons-10, 4-zone megablast to pancake that building. Can I say that everybody inside only gets knocked out? Even better, can I say that all the evil vampires get flattened while the physically weaker and already abused hostages survive?

Narrating results has to make sense.

Right, and my point is that the game already has ample ways to reflect that fact without adding arbitrary "if you inflict more than X stress, you killed your target" rules or the like. In your example, as the GM I'd argue that your target was actually the building you just pancaked and that any people inside are outside the scope of your ability to declare the result of a take-out.

I might have found a solution to the problem that I'd like to hear your take on. It came to me just half an hour ago and it's not fully thought through, nor is it tested or anything. Basically the problem is that to many shifts may be created to merit lets say a incapacitating take out, yes?

People are too hung up on the idea of stress as damage, when actually it's a measure of how quickly you can win the fight. If you start treating it like damage, the whole thing falls apart.

As a matter of fact there are rules about how to handle extra shifts. Take a look at YW 312 and the extra shifts section. I think it could apply. It even would be an elegant way to represent the difficulty of getting to a takeout through application of raw force. To get to an KO take out through an Attack Action, the player might have to generate more shifts on his attack roll, as it is generally more difficult to knock somebody out then crack some bones. If he fails to reach the required level of shifts, then he fails in pulling of the desired effect.

That works for non-conflict actions certainly. It doesn't really make sense for conflicts, and even the section you cite says that the obvious example of extra shifts is conflict: namely, extra shifts inflict more stress.

I don't know if I managed to communicate the idea correctly so I'll try an example:

William the Vampire Slayer wants to knock out a mook who is guarding the warehouse he'd like to get in quietly. Will is a tough guy with inhuman strength and stalks up to his target without a problem. His player Jon declares that he only wants to knock out the guy with an incapacitating blow to the neck. The GM decides that this is probably more difficult then just hiting him with all the force Will could muster and that he might seriously hurt the guy if he isn't really careful, meaning, that he has to generate at least three extra shifts to pull the attack of in this way. The GM also declares that, if the extra shift's aren't created through the attack roll, then the take out is likely not to be as desired.
Jon is fine with that and rolls weapons, which Will has on good, using a rusty pipe he found (Weapon:1). The roll is neither good nor bad 0 + - 0. The mook rolls his defense with endurance or athletics (both only average) and gets a bad result - - - +. His roll is poor -1. The required extra shifts are generated: Good vs Poor = 5. The KO is effective.

I'm pretty sure you guys can come up with a negative example yourself...

A better way to handle this, IMHO, is with a compel. Basically, when William takes out the guard and declares "I karate chop him in the neck and knock him out," the GM should ask himself "is it more interesting if William accidentally kills this guy?" If the answer is "no," let the declaration stand. You're not adding anything to the game by adding extra requirements onto a successful roll. If the answer is "yes," compel William's Vampire Slayer high concept. That's why characters have to have a high concept that ties to their supernatural nature: to allow you to compel things based on their powers. In this case, slide a Fate point across the table and say "You know, William sometimes forgets how strong a Vampire Slayer really is. I think maybe you hit him too hard." If William is willing and able to resist the compel, he's successful at pulling his blow, and he didn't have to make himself less effective at the thing he's supposed to be good at to do what he was trying to do anyways.

[CMEast]

Yeah I guess William the Vampire Slayer could have paid a fate point to invoke his high-concept, referencing his vampire strength, to declare that he will be able to easily knock this guy out without incident.

[Kordeth]

Yeah I guess William the Vampire Slayer could have paid a fate point to invoke his high-concept, referencing his vampire strength, to declare that he will be able to easily knock this guy out without incident.

That's another option, especially if failing to get past the guard undetected wouldn't be fun or interesting. Assuming there was a reason for it to be a conflict, though, I'd still let William's player declare the taken out result and then offer a compel to up it to something lethal.

[jalrin]

Offering compels creates a problem though: it means that characters basically have to stockpile most of their FATE points because otherwise the GM will destroy their characters with compels.  Because that would make the game less interesting for everyone (aspect usage is was what makes FATE interesting) such a strategy seems unwise.

[CMEast]

The GM shouldn't offer the compel unless it's to make things interesting. Perhaps there is a reason why he doesn't want you to have lots of fate points. Plus, generally to 'stockpile' you'd need to accept compels anyway. This game is particular reliant on good DM's.

[Kordeth]

Offering compels creates a problem though: it means that characters basically have to stockpile most of their FATE points because otherwise the GM will destroy their characters with compels.  Because that would make the game less interesting for everyone (aspect usage is was what makes FATE interesting) such a strategy seems unwise.

That's not a problem with offering compels, it's a problem with a) the GM offering compels when the circumstances of the compel don't make the game interesting (see above; if there's no real way William accidentally killing the guard makes for a better story, don't offer the compel) and b) the GM "destroying" players with compels. Compels should make the character's life more interesting (from a story point of view), not "destroy" them. There's a whole section on this topic on YS104.

[Deadmanwalking]

Offering compels creates a problem though: it means that characters basically have to stockpile most of their FATE points because otherwise the GM will destroy their characters with compels.  Because that would make the game less interesting for everyone (aspect usage is was what makes FATE interesting) such a strategy seems unwise.

A GM can always destroy a player with Compels he knows they won't obey, just like he can have Thor walk in and summarily kill them. Neither is reccomended, or done by good GMs.

[Wordmaker]

There's a lot of trust placed by this game on players and GMs alike to be mature and responsible during play. It's one of my favourite things about the game, that the fun really hinges on the group co-operating. If a GM's throwing compels around just to screw over the players, he needs to re-think why he's running the game.

Compels are my favourite way to emulate characters being tempted to cross the line and kill an opponent, or having to make an effort to retain control. It's a simple and straightforward method of handling the issue.