Author Topic: Concessions/Cashing Out/and Compromises  (Read 2662 times)

Offline Silverblaze

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1150
    • View Profile
Concessions/Cashing Out/and Compromises
« on: February 28, 2012, 02:46:48 AM »
Would you allow one character to cash out and save his character or concede (via concession) even if other PC's in the party/players in the group weren't willing to or didn't want to?

I know compromise goes a long way, but if it is clearly a situation of life and death where one player is ok with a character dying...should all PC's be punished for it?


Has this been an issue for anyone in their games yet?

Offline Mr. Death

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 7965
  • Not all those who wander are lost
    • View Profile
    • The C-Team Podcast
Re: Concessions/Cashing Out/and Compromises
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2012, 02:49:07 AM »
Dying isn't a Concession, it's being Taken Out. An individual being Taken Out doesn't affect what happens to the rest of the group.
Compels solve everything!

http://blur.by/1KgqJg6 My first book: "Brothers of the Curled Isles"

Quote from: Cozarkian
Not every word JB rights is a conspiracy. Sometimes, he's just telling a story.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_T_mld7Acnm-0FVUiaKDPA The C-Team Podcast

Offline Silverblaze

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1150
    • View Profile
Re: Concessions/Cashing Out/and Compromises
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2012, 02:50:56 AM »
Dying isn't a Concession, it's being Taken Out. An individual being Taken Out doesn't affect what happens to the rest of the group.

Allow me to clarify.

A wizard is about to drop a huge nuke spell.  One character wants to start the concession rules or cash out instead of getting hit by the spell.  One character would prefer to take his chances because he/she hates concessions.  How should this be handled?

Offline Haru

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 5520
  • Mentally unstable like a fox.
    • View Profile
Re: Concessions/Cashing Out/and Compromises
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2012, 03:10:16 AM »
Hmm, I could see a situation like this play out like this:
PC1: "We gotta go, he's gonna blow the whole place up!"
PC2: "Yeah, let's get out of here."
PC3: "You go, I'll try to stop him."
PC2: "You're insane, you won't even get close."
PC3: "I know what I'm doing. GO!"
PC1: "Good luck man."

PC1 and PC2 get out, PC3 stays and suffers the consequences. Part of the concession might even be that PC3 can stall the wizard long enough for PC1 and PC2 to get out.

All a concession really is, is an excuse to end a conflict before everyone of either side is taken out, so you keep some say in the way you get away.
“Do you not know that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken?”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Offline Mr. Death

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 7965
  • Not all those who wander are lost
    • View Profile
    • The C-Team Podcast
Re: Concessions/Cashing Out/and Compromises
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2012, 03:10:59 AM »
Allow me to clarify.

A wizard is about to drop a huge nuke spell.  One character wants to start the concession rules or cash out instead of getting hit by the spell.  One character would prefer to take his chances because he/she hates concessions.  How should this be handled?
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood you then.

I'd say that's something for the group as a whole to work out, but I'd lean toward the concession. The whole group shouldn't be punished because one player doesn't like a game mechanic.
Compels solve everything!

http://blur.by/1KgqJg6 My first book: "Brothers of the Curled Isles"

Quote from: Cozarkian
Not every word JB rights is a conspiracy. Sometimes, he's just telling a story.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_T_mld7Acnm-0FVUiaKDPA The C-Team Podcast

Offline UmbraLux

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1685
    • View Profile
Re: Concessions/Cashing Out/and Compromises
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2012, 03:46:12 AM »
A wizard is about to drop a huge nuke spell.  One character wants to start the concession rules or cash out instead of getting hit by the spell.  One character would prefer to take his chances because he/she hates concessions.  How should this be handled?
Fit the concession to the situation.  Perhaps one is thrown through a door (where he can get up and run away) by the blast while the other takes full damage.  Perhaps one is knocked out for a second or two (or longer) instead of taking the damage dealt to his ally.

In the end, concessions are a chance to negotiate a sub-par solution for both parties.  It should fit the situation, put the conceder at some disadvantage, but not give the opponent a complete win. 
--
“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.”  - Albert Einstein

"Rudeness is a weak imitation of strength."  - Eric Hoffer

Offline Vargo Teras

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: Concessions/Cashing Out/and Compromises
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2012, 06:06:34 AM »
"I run away" is very often a valid concession scenario.  It's invalid when the NPC's motivation in the scene is specifically to kill or capture the person desiring to run away, but unless that's the case, one character should be able to concede while letting others fight on.  Variants of running away include getting blown out of a window/off of a cliff, getting trapped under rubble from which they'll be able to escape at scene's end, etc.

Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: Concessions/Cashing Out/and Compromises
« Reply #7 on: February 29, 2012, 05:58:29 PM »
Interestingly enough Fred says that a concession only happens in the face of stress, so one might argue that the player who wants to concede can't do so until the wizard casts his spell.

Offline GryMor

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Re: Concessions/Cashing Out/and Compromises
« Reply #8 on: February 29, 2012, 06:54:14 PM »
Would you allow one character to cash out and save his character or concede (via concession) even if other PC's in the party/players in the group weren't willing to or didn't want to?

Concession is an individual response to stress, AFAIK, it's normal for both sides of a conflict to suffer attritional concessions throughout a semi-climactic scene. That said, it clearly has to come before the wizards big attack lands if they have no hope of avoiding being taken out by the big attack.

Offline Mr. Death

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 7965
  • Not all those who wander are lost
    • View Profile
    • The C-Team Podcast
Re: Concessions/Cashing Out/and Compromises
« Reply #9 on: February 29, 2012, 06:59:30 PM »
The rulebooks say that you shouldn't take a concession has to come specifically before the attack that would have taken you out, as otherwise that would rob the other guy of his rightly-earned victory. And the stress/consequences listed there, at least, are mentioned as guidelines.
Compels solve everything!

http://blur.by/1KgqJg6 My first book: "Brothers of the Curled Isles"

Quote from: Cozarkian
Not every word JB rights is a conspiracy. Sometimes, he's just telling a story.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_T_mld7Acnm-0FVUiaKDPA The C-Team Podcast

Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: Concessions/Cashing Out/and Compromises
« Reply #10 on: February 29, 2012, 07:10:08 PM »
Something he said in response to transformation on a willing target:

Finally transformation ritual on a willing target. Do you have to still have enough shifts of power to overcome all of their consequences, or could they technically choose not to take those consequences in which case you would only have to overcome the stress track?

One might suggest that this is a concession scenario. :)

I have to ask for a little more clarification on this one for two reasons. Firstly this is a huge one on the boards. No one seems to be able to come to a consensus on shifts necessary to transform a willing target. Secondly knowing what needs to be overcome is important for determining shifts. If we use the concession scenario, then do we simply need enough shifts to pay for the transformation effect itself without dealing any stress to the target?

No, concessions are done only in the face of stress. You'd have to deal enough stress to exceed the target's stress track for it to make sense for concessions to come into play. So that's your minimum.

This confuses me a bit. If you deal enough stress to exceed their stress track, then aren't they just taken out at that point, no concessions necessary?

That's the point at which they're:

- Taking a consequence and staying in the fight, or
- Conceding (though they could take a consequence), or
- Taken out (because they cannot take a consequence)


Offline Mr. Death

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 7965
  • Not all those who wander are lost
    • View Profile
    • The C-Team Podcast
Re: Concessions/Cashing Out/and Compromises
« Reply #11 on: February 29, 2012, 07:22:02 PM »
I got a totally different sense of how Concessions and Taken Out worked from the rulebook. From what I gathered, you didn't get Taken Out only if you didn't have consequences left, you had to choose to take consequences, and a concession had to be offered before the killing stroke was made.

I'd say it's fine to concede when you think you're about to take a hit that could take you out.
Compels solve everything!

http://blur.by/1KgqJg6 My first book: "Brothers of the Curled Isles"

Quote from: Cozarkian
Not every word JB rights is a conspiracy. Sometimes, he's just telling a story.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_T_mld7Acnm-0FVUiaKDPA The C-Team Podcast

Offline Becq

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
Re: Concessions/Cashing Out/and Compromises
« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2012, 12:39:26 AM »
Yeah, his response looks at first glance as though it contradicts the RAW, which states:
Quote from: YS206
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.
However, at ... oh, around fourth glance (at least in my case), I came up with the following parse that seems to fit both RAW and those comments:
Before an attack is rolled/resolved: You may conceed only if the attack has to carry the potential to inflict enough stress to take you out -- exceeding your stress track, though not necessarily taking into account available consequences, since you can choose not to take them.  Note that since there is no explicit "roll to take you out" in Thaumaturgy, the decision is made at the completion of the spell (but before it is resolved).
After an attack roll/during resolution: If you have enough remaining consequences to avoid being taken out, then you have a choice between taking the consequences or offering a concession instead of taking the consequences.  However, if enough stress results that you can't stay in the fight even if you were to take all of your remaining consequences, then you are taken out without the option of concession.

This satisfies both RAW and Fred's comments.  So in the case of Thaumaturgy, this means that at minimum, the spell has to be set up to inflict stress enough to exceed your stress boxes (but not your consequences).  If it does less, then there's no option to conceed.

As to the scenario in question, I don't see any reason why one player can't offer a concession when other players don't.  As long as the concession is deemed reasonable by the table/GM, then go with it.  And if another player wants to duke it out to the bitter end, then that's fine too.  The player who intends to conceed just starts using his actions to set up for the concession.  I think it's probably a good idea to rule on whether or not the concession is legitimate before going on; if not you should gently point out that there's no way to simply "escape somehow" the massive death spell that will eradicate all life within ten miles, and ask if they'd like to try another option.

If you'd like to look at it another way, the 'escaping' player is basically using his actions on an extended contest to get out of the dead zone.  You might take this option literally, saying that he has X exchanges to achieve Y shifts worth of sprinting in order to get away, or you could handwave it and say "Sure, if you clear out now, you can get away ... especially since your buddy Bob is sticking around to keep him busy."