What does Taken Out mean?

[ways and means]

Demonic Co-pilot is just a plain bad power that is only useful for dealing with unintelligent wild spirits and even then not optimally. It is a power with allows no subtly or even a voice for the co-pilot which doesn't recognise that a co-pilot may have multiple agenda's and multiple methods such as subtle shaping rather than directly attacking its hosts mind. If you are going to have a possessed pc then the co-pilots should be GM run pc capable of subtly and planning not just a damage mechanic. 

[Mr. Death]

only useful for dealing with unintelligent wild spirits

Well...yes. That's exactly what Demonic Co-Pilot is for--a spirit to do the "heavy lifting" when you're shapeshifted into a different form. It says exactly that in the power's description. It's not supposed to be for a complicated, scheming demon with all kinds of subtlety and plans within plans.

Look, Demonic Co-Pilot as a shapeshifting power isn't supposed to be complicated. The spirit is, presumably, some kind of spirit akin to whatever form you've shifted into. And the "agenda" is "act more like the form you're in."

So a wolf spirit makes you want to hunt and kill. Maybe a "benign" spirit like a dove or whatever makes you want to not give a damn and just go flying instead of what your real goals are.

The "agenda" of the Demonic Co-Pilot, to my reading, is supposed to be primal and simple--and primal and simple is easy to make opposed, or at least complicating, to the character's own agenda. (See: Any time Harry is ever faced with a female).

It kind of reminds me of the Discworld series' approach to shapeshifting and borrowing, for instance. Werewolves, the longer they stay in wolf form, act more wolf and dog like. One such villain is dispatched because he can't help but jump up to catch an object flying over his head (even if it's a firecracker). For witches in that series, "borrowing" is piggybacking on some kind of animal and controlling it from afar--and if the witch holds on too long, they may never come back (and when they do come back, they take on the animal's traits for a bit--borrow an eagle for a while, and you start giving rabbits and squirrels hungry looks).

[Richard_Chilton]

I think even the Pure Mortal Purists would have difficulty truly justifying denying the bonus solely on the basis of access to Sponsor Debt.

I have no problem justifying it.

A Pure Mortal is a PC with no intrinsic supernatural powers, not a PC without really useful intrinsic supernatural powers.  If a PC gaina a supernatural - even one as useless as Cassandra’s Tears, then he isn't a Pure Mortal.

And if he entered into an agreement, pact, or are otherwise opened up to a theoretical "take sponsor debt for non-magical rolls" powers, then he is not a Pure Mortal.

Richard

[Centarion]

no intrinsic supernatural powers

A mortal who can take sponsor debt has no intrinsic powers. Intrinsic, by definition, means a power belonging wholly to the mortal, as part of them. Sponsor debt is not something that is not a power of the mortal, but instead an outside source granting them aid (by definition, not intrinsic).

When you take a power, like Cassandra's Tears, you are no longer pure mortal, you have your own supernatural power (even if it isn't useful). Such a character is clearly no longer pure mortal, they have an intrinsic power (though I would likely let them have the bonus, for game balance reasons). On the other hand, entering into a bargain with an entity does not give you powers by itself, you have no powers, you cannot do anything special, you just sometimes get a boost (invoke an aspect or such, which is clearly not a supernatural power) to whatever normal mortal thing you are doing in exchange for your "help" later.

Weather or not you choose to give out the bonus refresh in a given circumstance is your choice. As is what you want to call a pure mortal. But the reason the bonus exists in the rules is clearly for balance reasons (or at least the decision to add it is motivated strongly by balance, among other possible factors). If a character does not have any useful supernatural powers, they are going to be weaker than one who does, that is why they get a bonus in my game (not for flavor reasons).

Also, I agree demonic co-pilot is a horribly worded power and would just be better off as an aspect and sponsor debt. You can invoke the aspect to help you when you are acting in accordance with the co-pilot's agenda and you get compelled when you aren't. If you wanted to make it cost something it would be easy to allow the demon to help you when you act to further its goals, look at a power like Righteousness, which is kind of like demonic co-pilot where the co-pilot is God, just re skin as appropriate (change conviction to some other skill, change out the burst attack for some other ability you can use, maybe after you savagely kill someone).

[Mr. Death]

Oh buggerall we're not getting into this argument again, are we?

[ways and means]

Well...yes. That's exactly what Demonic Co-Pilot is for--a spirit to do the "heavy lifting" when you're shapeshifted into a different form. It says exactly that in the power's description. It's not supposed to be for a complicated, scheming demon with all kinds of subtlety and plans within plans.

Look, Demonic Co-Pilot as a shapeshifting power isn't supposed to be complicated. The spirit is, presumably, some kind of spirit akin to whatever form you've shifted into. And the "agenda" is "act more like the form you're in."

So a wolf spirit makes you want to hunt and kill. Maybe a "benign" spirit like a dove or whatever makes you want to not give a damn and just go flying instead of what your real goals are.

The "agenda" of the Demonic Co-Pilot, to my reading, is supposed to be primal and simple--and primal and simple is easy to make opposed, or at least complicating, to the character's own agenda. (See: Any time Harry is ever faced with a female).

It kind of reminds me of the Discworld series' approach to shapeshifting and borrowing, for instance. Werewolves, the longer they stay in wolf form, act more wolf and dog like. One such villain is dispatched because he can't help but jump up to catch an object flying over his head (even if it's a firecracker). For witches in that series, "borrowing" is piggybacking on some kind of animal and controlling it from afar--and if the witch holds on too long, they may never come back (and when they do come back, they take on the animal's traits for a bit--borrow an eagle for a while, and you start giving rabbits and squirrels hungry looks).

I see as a failure of simulations it is called demonic co-pilot but it really fails to model the majority of demons we have seen in the Dresden Verse, demonic co-pilot should be the power to use for modelling a Denarian (a demonic entity that possess and manipulates it's host) but it utterly fails when used for this purpose.

[Mr. Death]

Yes, it utterly fails when you try to use it for something that it was clearly never intended to be used for.

Just like Evocation utterly fails if you try to use it to simulate Thaumaturgy.

Having "demonic" in the name doesn't mean it's meant to represent every kind of demon ever mentioned in the series. I'm not sure how many times I have to keep saying this: It's made for a specific purpose, to emulate the kind of demonic influence that inhabits the Hexenwulf belts. It's not made to emulate every demonic interaction ever, and if it "fails" at doing that, it's not the fault of the power, it's the fault of someone who's failing to understand what the power's for.

[Richard_Chilton]

Oh buggerall we're not getting into this argument again, are we?

Not on my side.  I've stated my view and I don't believe explaining it further will change anyone's mind.  I could copy and paste the Pure Mortal template as well as various other sections of the rules, but why? If anyone's interested in that then it's all there in the archives - and I know doing so won't alter anyone's opinions.

Richard

[admiralducksauce]

Does someone who chooses to be Taken Out by a blow to the head--getting knocked out--suffer no consequences, when he would have taken the Moderate Consequence of a concussion if he'd stayed in the fight?

The way I've run this is that the only mechanical baggage that comes with being Taken Out comes as a result of the negotiation and agreement on what the Taken Out should encompass. While a Moderate consequence "Concussion" is certainly on the table when you're Taken Out by being knocked unconscious, so are things like being robbed, captured and held hostage, social consequences like "left on the freeway naked at rush hour", and so on. The only reason you should end up with consequences after a Taken Out result is if it is agreeable to the players involved.

In your example above, I would say a Moderate consequence "concussion" is very appropriate, but no, it is not and should not be mechanically enforced when someone's Taken Out.

As for Demonic Co-Pilot, I don't even know what people are arguing about anymore. Nobody's going to convince anybody who hasn't already been convinced.

[Sanctaphrax]

As for Demonic Co-Pilot, I don't even know what people are arguing about anymore. Nobody's going to convince anybody who hasn't already been convinced.

Nobody convinces their opponents in an internet argument (except in very rare situations). The format is like that of a political debate; you're trying to show the world that you're right. It's about the (possibly imaginary, possibly real) audience.

Just plain not true.
By a strict reading of the rules, they shouldn't be--but to my reading, it's not the intent of the power.
Just as foolish as assuming something is unclear just because you misunderstand it.

You're kind of showing my point here. If something is the clear intent, then there's no need for separate readings. If people understand something, then it's clear. If they don't, then it's not. I don't understand how you can even use the word clarity without that definition.

...Have you watched the news lately? Anything on MTV? Jersey Shore? There's a whole heap of evidence for this.

Enjoying lowbrow entertainment does not make you stupid. It just means that you like lowbrow entertainment.

I haven't watched a TV show in about four years...but my brother is a Jersey Shore fan. I think he has bad taste, but he's definitely not stupid.

I'm an arrogant guy sometimes, but I don't have the hideously bloated self-image required to look down on "the masses" because their hobbies are different from mine.

I mean that when they were writing it, they may have accepted as a remote possibility that someone might have a non-evil demonic co-pilot, but they didn't intend people to have non-evil demonic co-pilots.

Like how wearing a bullet-proof vest accounts for the possibility you'll be shot, but wearing it certainly doesn't mean you intend to be shot.

What?

The whole issue we're arguing right now is that it doesn't account for the possibility of a non-evil co-pilot. It breaks when you add one, barring unusual circumstances.

[Richard_Chilton]

Back on topic, when you are taken out the character taking you defines what happens to you.  If he wants to say "okay, you were knocked unconscious with no other ill effects" and the table agrees it's reasonable, then that's what happens.  He wants to say "I punch nose cartilage into your brain, killing you" and the table agrees it's reasonable, then that's what happens.  If he wants to hold to the middle ground, to assign non-lethal consequences and the table agrees it's reasonable, then that's what happens.

Kill someone with a punch? It happens.  Boxers occasionally get "taken out" in lethal ways.  Type "Boxer kills" into google and one of the first results is http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/crime/s/1316282_video_former_boxer_kills_man_with_killer_punch - which is about a 'one pouch, one death" fight.

That's assuming that it isn't a concession - which is the only time you negotiate a takeout.  If you get taken out without conceding, the only restrictions on what happens is:
a) it has to be something that the table agrees is reasonable, and
b) if it involves your PC's death you still "own your death scene".

And if the entity taking you out is a demonic one (say, attached to a power named "demonic co-pilot" as opposed to "angelic co-pilot"), the takeout isn't going to be a good thing for you.

Richard

[Mr. Death]

You're kind of showing my point here. If something is the clear intent, then there's no need for separate readings. If people understand something, then it's clear. If they don't, then it's not. I don't understand how you can even use the word clarity without that definition.

How are you defining "people understand"? What's the threshold? Is it only clear if everyone reading gets it on the first go? If so, then there's almost nothing that can be truly called "clear."

Enjoying lowbrow entertainment does not make you stupid. It just means that you like lowbrow entertainment.

I haven't watched a TV show in about four years...but my brother is a Jersey Shore fan. I think he has bad taste, but he's definitely not stupid.

I'm an arrogant guy sometimes, but I don't have the hideously bloated self-image required to look down on "the masses" because their hobbies are different from mine.

That line was mostly a joke. But the point remains, there is plenty of evidence for stupidity in people. Watching Jersey Shore may not make you stupid (and isn't what I meant--I meant the people on Jersey Shore, and the people who take them as role-models), but I could make the argument that paying Snooki thousands of dollars to speak to students at a college just might.

Or the "Who needs good grades/Who needs condoms when you have swag?" posters I've seen lately. (Presuming they're real, anyway, I haven't given enough of a damn about them to verify).

What?

The whole issue we're arguing right now is that it doesn't account for the possibility of a non-evil co-pilot. It breaks when you add one, barring unusual circumstances.

I made a slight concession, that the writers may have anticipated and accounted for the possibility, after rereading the power, and have shifted my argument to that non-evil co-pilots are against the clear intent of the power.

[Becq]

I'm fairly certain that ruling's wrong.

I could be mis-remembering, but I thought that some time back when we had the Pure Human discussion, that someone pulled out an email from Fred that indicated that the threshold for losing Pure Human was spending refresh on powers.  I did not share that opinion, but there it was.

Bad idea. Don't mess with the Compel system like this, it can only end badly.

A point of Sponsor Debt is a virtual Fate Point. This change would make that not so, rendering them much less point-full.

As I mentioned, I wasn't entirely happy with it either.  The problem was that on the one hand I liked the idea of making sponsored invokes a bit more powerful (basically just tacking on a stunt that allows a particular sort of invoke to grant +3 instead of +2), but on the other hand do so allows Fate laundering (I invoke with sponsored debt to get a +3, then buy off the debt later by spending a Fate point).  So yeah, it's probably a no-go.

Better, but probably pointlessly clunky and liable to make Compels into good things. Seriously, it's not good to mess with this stuff unless you really know what you're doing.

Compels can only be good things in the hands of a GM who's not trying hard enough.  By definition, its only a proper compel if it causes trouble for the character.

Personally, I think it's probably best to let people go into FP debt without a Power. It mitigates some systemic problems that show up when people have no FP. Namely, it means that non-taggable Aspects are never totally worthless and it means that Compels are never irresistible.

But it also creates a new problem (or at least what I see as a potential exploit) by way of offering 100% interest-free Fate loans.  Borrow Fate whenever you need it, so long as you buy off the debt with a Fate point when you get one -- no consequences.  Or, better yet, wait to hear what the proposed compel is, then decide whether to take a possibly "easy" compel, or buy it off.

[Tedronai]

How are you defining "people understand"? What's the threshold? Is it only clear if everyone reading gets it on the first go? If so, then there's almost nothing that can be truly called "clear."

Clarity is not binary.
Perfect clarity would result in perfect understanding from all who witnessed it.
Perfect lack of clarity would result in total misunderstanding from all who witnessed it.
Everything else will be somewhere between those two extremes.

[Becq]

By your definition, then, perfect clarity cannot exist.  So what's the point in discussing it?

It would make more sense to define clarity in terms of being able to communicate concepts to those reasonably equipped to understand the concept, but I doubt that the world's most skillful communicator could convey to, say, an infant how to fold a towel in a way that the infant could understand.  Which makes "clarity" a worthless concept.