You don't have to take a consequence? Really?

[Taran]

So in a previous thread I mentionned that one of my PC's was Taken Out in social combat.

To start off, when the NPC won initiative I told the player that the NPC had lots of maneuvers/assessments to tag and offered the player a chance to concede before she attacked.  The player chose to take the attack and was Taken Out.
The NPC did like 24 points of stress in a single attack (after tagging lots of maneuvers).  I'd kind of imagined the PC taking an Extreme Consequence and changing an aspect to reflect that he'd fallen in Love with the NPC.

As the Player was determining what to do with his consequences, he said "I'm only going to take a moderate and be Taken Out".

Really?

I know the NPC gets to choose the Taken Out conditions, but if there's no long term mechanical effect (consequences), it can be, in some situations, less of a detriment.  I just see situations where someone with a Recovery Power goes, "Woh!  That was piles of damage and no matter what I do, I'm getting Taken Out.  If I'm going to be captured then I don't want to have any long-term consequences.  I'll just take a mild and be Taken Out".  I know he loses out on FP's for having less consequences when Taken Out...but is this how it works?

In the end, in the scenario the player agreed to take the Extreme as it would make for a better story...

[Falar]

If the damage exceeds the character’s stress track,
or occupied boxes “push” the stress off the right
side of the stress track, the character is taken
out, meaning the character has decisively lost
the conflict. His fate is in the hands of the opponent,
who may decide how the character loses.

I'm not sure what your NPCs goal in the social conflict was, but whatever it was, you could really dictate that it happened. So, if your NPCs goal was to get his character to fall in love with yours, you could practically say that that happened, as long as it met the approval of the table.

Being Taken Out means the character loses. That means the NPC wins. So, whatever the NPCs goal was in the conflict, something along those lines happens. If a long-term temporary aspect is what you levy against him "IN LOVE WITH NPC" that's not a consequence or one of his seven aspects, you could theoretically do that.

My two cents, really.

[UmbraLux]

As the Player was determining what to do with his consequences, he said "I'm only going to take a moderate and be Taken Out".

Really?

I know the NPC gets to choose the Taken Out conditions, but if there's no long term mechanical effect (consequences), it can be, in some situations, less of a detriment.  I just see situations where someone with a Recovery Power goes, "Woh!  That was piles of damage and no matter what I do, I'm getting Taken Out.  If I'm going to be captured then I don't want to have any long-term consequences.  I'll just take a mild and be Taken Out".  I know he loses out on FP's for having less consequences when Taken Out...but is this how it works?

It's a potentially viable concession however, concessions cannot save a character from the consequences of a roll.  See YS206 "...a character cannot be saved from a roll that takes him out by offering a concession.  You have to offer the concession before the roll..."  Additionally, concessions are negotiated - the whole group gets a chance to weigh in and say that sounds reasonable or it doesn't.  So that part of what you did sounds correct.

My only question regarding the mechanics is on the aspects tagged.  Maneuver created aspects don't last long, so he should have been there (with a chance to act) while any were put in place.  The other method is using a bunch of fate points on longer term aspects.  Did she really drop a bunch of fate points to make him fall in love?  Sounds like an interesting lead in to a story...

[Masurao]

Rules-wise, no help from me, but there are two things I would consider here:

1) You basically flat out told the player: "You gonna lose, bub, be smart..." And he opted not to be smart. He had his chance to influence the outcome in his favor, didn't take it, so he's basically screwed and forced to stick with whatever you dole out. (One of the replies backs this up rules-wise, as he was taken out and the NPC could do whatever she wanted with him. He's lucky she didn't have some "BURLY EX-PRISONERS WHO HAVEN'T HAD SOME FOR TOO LONG" nearby.)

2) Perhaps, as a moderate consequence, you could have given him "CAN'T STOP THINKING ABOUT THAT GIRL"? This would allow you to compel it quite often, like whenever he sees someone with the some build/hair colour, when he thinks he hears her name, or something like that.

Again, my two cents without any usable knowledge of the rules backing them up

[Falar]

Hmmm. The player was offering a concession after the roll? That's not allowed by the rules (specifically, it says you have to offer the concession before the dice hit the table), although many people play pretty fast and loose with that point.

Finally, a character cannot be saved from a
roll that takes him out by offering a concession.
You have to offer the concession before the roll
that takes out your character. Otherwise, it’s
cheating the opponent out of victory.

Either with a concession or being Taken Out, here are some suggestions for what to levy against them (emphasis mine):

* The character has at least one moderate
or worse consequence as a result of the
conflict.
* The outcome creates significant difficulty
for the character in the future. The character
might offer a concession to avoid
getting maimed, but maybe that means
an artifact he was protecting gets stolen,
or something along those lines.
* The outcome creates a situation that
restricts the character’s behavior in some
significant way, like owing a large debt
to someone. This may require adding an
additional, long-term, temporary aspect
to the character, separate from his consequence
track, so that the defeat can be
enforced via compels.

I would have personally gone with the third option and given him a long-term, temporary aspect of "IN LOVE WITH NPC" that would last at least until the end of this adventure and possibly until the end of the next one. Remember, he lost the ability to dictate the result of the combat when he lost. It is entirely in your hands (and what passes group consensus) at the point of him being Taken Out.

[Faithmage]

1)You might want to remind the player that for each concequence that they have when were taken out gives them a Fate point in the following scene.
2) With that much shift i would be laying down aspects that affect not only that one character but his team mates, after all you are who you hang out with.

[Watson]

As the Player was determining what to do with his consequences, he said "I'm only going to take a moderate and be Taken Out".

Remember that taking a consequence is the controlling player's choice.

Generally, the character taking more stress that the stress track allows would either take a consequence to remain in the conflict or not take a consequence and be Taken Out (i.e. getting Taken Out does not require you to take a consequence). Of course, the player could take a consequence (that is not "big enough" to keep him in the conflict) and then be Taken Out as well (the only positive thing in that case is that the player will receive one Fate Point per consequence).

[zenten]

I'm pretty sure that altering a character aspect is in line with the sort of thing a Taken Out result can so.

[Taran]

Just to clarify:

-I offered to let him conceed BEFORE I rolled for the NPC.  My concession probably would have been a moderate or severe consequence and leaving the bar with the NPC.

-The NPC had made a few assessments about the PC/scene that she could tag using empathy and awareness.  She'd also done some scene-long naval-gazing maneuvers.

-Was it the intention of the NPC to have the PC fall in love with her?  Not quite, but she has an aspect that basically says boys fall all over her.  As well, it made for a good story(long term) to have this particular PC fall for this particular NPC.
@UmbraLux the background is in this thread if you haven't read it and want to: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,26973.0.html

- I'm mostly annoyed that someone can choose to not take any consequences when they see that they are completely defeated.  I guess I just have to adjust my perception of how Taken Out works.

[Richard_Chilton]

This is how I see the rules working (and if I'm wrong I'd love to be corrected).
GM: "That's 6 stress.  Ouch.  So how are going to deal with it?"
Player: "I'm going to be taken out."
GM: "But you still have your moderate and severe consequence and..."
Player: "Yeah, but I'm saving them for the big battle tonight.  I should have my mild back for that battle and I want to be full for it.  This NPC isn't going to kill me - the worse that happens is instead of intimidating her I'll run away like a scared little puppy.  Maybe I'll even give her information - whatever.  No, I'm going to need those consequences for the big battle and losing here doesn't really matter, so I'm losing."

And then the PC loses and the winning character dictates the takeout - all because the player didn't want to take consequences in this situation.


It's the same as if a PC with a stress track of 2 takes three stress after he's already used his mild, moderate, and severe consequences - it wouldn't be fair to insist that he take an extreme to cover that exchange, would it? Of course not.  So if the player doesn't want to take consequences he doesn't have too... Of course the take might involve assigning him consequences, but once he's made that decision then what happens is out of his hands.

Richard

[EdgeOfDreams]

- I'm mostly annoyed that someone can choose to not take any consequences when they see that they are completely defeated.  I guess I just have to adjust my perception of how Taken Out works.

It does seem a little odd, but here's the most important factor:

If I concede before getting attacked, (or after getting attacked, taking some consequences, and surviving), I get to dictate how I lose.  The players and GM have to agree, but in general, I can 'lose' in the way that is least harmful to me.

On the other hand, if I refuse to take a consequence from a large attack and get taken out, I have given up any and all say in what happens to me. It becomes completely up to the opponent, and I should lose in the way that is MOST harmful to me or most in line with the opponent's goals.

[Drachasor]

I think mostly everything has been said.  I would only add that if the player is really against an extreme consequence of being in love, then you should find something else.  Consequences are not about punishing the player.  They should make life more difficult, true, but even more importantly they should make the game more fun.  It seems a bit unclear to me where the player stood in all this (beyond not wanting to get hurt much).

Now, like EdgeofDreams said, if someone gets taken out, then the attacker can decide the rough nature of what happens (within reason), but not the precise details.  That may mean a significant consequences and may not.  You might consider whether this NPC would have wanted to inflict a life-altering consequence on the PC, or whether they'd be happy with perhaps a moderate or severe one instead.

[Taran]

Cool.  THanks to all who responded.

[Watson]

I can fully understand Tarans frustration, especially in a social combat. As I understand it, the thing is that the player chooses to get Taken Out, as that seems to be much less of a problem compared to taking a consequence (that will stick for quite a while, depending on the level of consequence).

I am not sure that the Taken Out result in a social combat has been explained fully. Compare it with a physical combat, where being Taken Out could mean death - that, in worst case, ought to be result here as well (well, not death, but a serious situation). So a veeery sticky aspect is very much a suitable result for a character that is loosing the social combat (especially to those shifts indicated!). As a GM, you could let the aspect stick for longer than a severe consequence, if you like... and compel the hell out of it! 

[luminos]

First of all, a 24 shift attack from a pure mortal (or anything less than a faerie queen, really) is pure bullshit.  Yes, I know you found cute ways to justify it, but you still pulled the equivalent of "you lose because I said so and I have all the power". 

On the main issue, yes, the player decides if they take a consequence or not.  The downside being that when you lose a conflict, you are at the whim of whoever beat you.  This is one of the big strengths of the Fate system (the aspect thing overshadows this, which is a shame).  Because the player can determine when they take consequences, and whether or not they concede or press the issue, they have the power to determine what is important to their character.  They can say "I'd rather lose this fight here, and save my strength for something else" or "no, this matters, I'm pulling out all the stops, regardless of what it costs me in future effectiveness".