Apects / FP system vs. roleplaying

[Edrac]

GM counts as player?

Dunno RAW, but thje GM is engaging the rules of the game to facilitate an outcome simmilarly to a player are they not?

IMO GM's play the game just like the players, they are simply allowed more narratice rights in general.

[Jabberwocky]

Uh, guys, what exactly is RaW?
Very interesting discussion otherwise. I'm opting either for "concessions should hurt substantially" or for not using them at all. I understand them as an element that allows for PCs to escape potentially lethal situations and create cinematic events but I'd rather go with believable story and consistence. This concession concept reminds me of the old Deus-Ex-Machina business in ancient theatre plays... In short: If the player can come up with something creative, believable and hurting his character at the same time, ok I'm in. Otherwise it's the winning party's decision.

[Addicted2aa]

Rules as Written. Short hand for not including house rules.

I agree. Concessions should be the PC or NPC doesn't get what they want and should make sense in the story. When my NPC's concede, it's usually running away(I tried to have one beg for his life, but the PC's just executed him), and I ask if the player will pursue. If the players pursue, I don't count it as a concession, if they don't, then I do. When my players concede, I listen, if it makes sense, I'll agree, if it doesn't I say no, then ask the other players if I'm being to harsh.
Concede shouldn't be a get away free button, unless the opposing party is content to let them run.

[Edrac]

Uh, guys, what exactly is RaW?
Very interesting discussion otherwise. I'm opting either for "concessions should hurt substantially" or for not using them at all. I understand them as an element that allows for PCs to escape potentially lethal situations and create cinematic events but I'd rather go with believable story and consistence. This concession concept reminds me of the old Deus-Ex-Machina business in ancient theatre plays... In short: If the player can come up with something creative, believable and hurting his character at the same time, ok I'm in. Otherwise it's the winning party's decision.

You always have to be smart with concessions. Those mooks the BBEG hired may think twice on if it's worth dying for the pay they got when the PC's respond with overwhelming force. I've always read the concession rules as taking the character into account. If the PC's try to ambush an arms dealer amd are then counter ambushed, conceding and surrendering should always be a viable option. You see it all the time in movies and books. Dresden Files is at it's core a pulp inspired game.

[Jabberwocky]

Maybe I'm uneasy with concessions being a built-in system/metagaming concept. An option in the rulebook. Of course that street thugs won't fight to the death. They will try to flee at some point or they will surrender: "Oh, please, most radiant masters, don't kill me, I have a wife and 6 children! I'll tell you everything, I promise!" But this is purely role-playing interaction, not a built-in system rule. And vice versa - if the PC offers to surrender the NPCs have to react somehow. But having such a meta fail-safe in the rules, well, I don't like it very much. With pulp atmosphere it's the matter of taste I'd say. Use it too much and to some players/GMs the game may appear ubelievable or outright stupid.

[Addicted2aa]

But see it is an option, cause you never have to take it. All it does is allow you to ask have some control when you are going out. I'm pretty sure I'm going to lose this fight, well, here's an interesting way to lose it. The vampire pushes me off the roof, grabs the little girl I was protecting and disapears into his helicopter. But I caught a flag pole on the way down and am left hanging there as the helicopter speeds away.

Again it comes back to that shared narrative control thing. Despite the title of the first book, it's not Your Story. It's OUR story, the entire table. If you don't want to share control, I agree, it's a shitty rule. But if you do, It's a great rule.

[Mr. Death]

A concession never has to be "the PCs offer to surrender." It just means the player decides how things end instead of the person taking him out. It doesn't have to be anything the characters discuss at all.

The difference between a Taken Out and a Concession could be as miniscule as:

Taken Out: Badness McVillain sends a wave of power at the PC, knocking him out the window, killing him. Badness McVillain sneers, picks up the MacGuffin, and leaves.

Concession: Badness McVillain sens a wave of power at the PC, knocking him out the window. He thinks the PC is dead, but he's arrogant enough not to check. He picks up the MacGuffin and leaves. Twenty minutes later, the PC wakes up with a killer headache.

[Edrac]

Maybe I'm uneasy with concessions being a built-in system/metagaming concept. An option in the rulebook. Of course that street thugs won't fight to the death. They will try to flee at some point or they will surrender: "Oh, please, most radiant masters, don't kill me, I have a wife and 6 children! I'll tell you everything, I promise!" But this is purely role-playing interaction, not a built-in system rule. And vice versa - if the PC offers to surrender the NPCs have to react somehow. But having such a meta fail-safe in the rules, well, I don't like it very much. With pulp atmosphere it's the matter of taste I'd say. Use it too much and to some players/GMs the game may appear ubelievable or outright stupid.

It seems to me (and this is all my perception and opinion, please do not take it as fact) that the intention of the game and maybe the game designers was to have there be no time in a game where mechanics are not being engaged. Roleplaying doesn't stop when dice come out or mechanics are engaged. Unlike most traditional  games where the phrase "it was a great session, we never rolled the dice!" Can be true, Dresden aims to mechanize those times where other games simply have no mechanics to cover. The overwhelming focus of a traditional game is combat, and social stuff is relegated to a handfull of skills that usually aren't more complex than a single diece roll.

My opinion has always been if you never engage the mechanics in a game session, why bother? You're just inproving at that point (unless you're playing fiasco where improv IS the mechanic).

Metagaming is also a thing in Dresden as I see it. You're all creating a story as the writers, directors and actors. Sometimes you zoom in and inhabit the character's shoes, sometimes you pull back and manipulate things on a meta level. The GM is more a head director, having some veto power, but otherwise the flow of Narritive Control is fluid.

Now, that may not be you're playstyle, and that's totally ok, and you can run it anyway you see fit. But RaW the mechanics seem to encourage the GM to let go a little.

[Haru]

"Oh, please, most radiant masters, don't kill me, I have a wife and 6 children! I'll tell you everything, I promise!"

This is probably better as a flavor of a taken out result. A concession happens before that. It is an OOC discussion about what is going to happen. In a case like the above, a concession could be something like the GM saying "you know guys, I'd kind of like to keep those guys around for a bit, so they will drop a clue for you when they run, but they will get away or you will let them run. Deal?"

It is like something that Jim wrote on his lifejournal about writing scenes in a novel. Once you have a scene lined out, you ask "do the protagonists reach their goal?". There are two basic outcomes, of course: yes and no. Which he deems to be rather bland. He says he prefers "yes, but" and "no, and" solutions. I see concessions mostly as a "yes, but" solution here. "You rescue the princess, but the dragon gets away." "You can get to a piece of paper with some vital information, but the rest of the office is lost to the flames." Things that will somehow keep things moving.

A "no, and" could be those circumstances, where the character barely gets away with his life, and to be that lucky, he takes a hit somewhere else. His equipment breaks, the villain gets something that will make him more powerful, the character will look like a killer to someone, things like that.

[Jabberwocky]

Addicted2aa: I agree, it comes to that narrative vs. shared control approach again. (At least I understand the basics already :-) I'm just saying, I don't want the concessions to be a cheap get-away failsafe based on the rules. Plus, I find them to be difficult to justify in some situations. That's why I'm asking for game experience with this rule. Believe me, I'm not a control-obsessed PC killer - there have been few victims of my GM-ing over past twenty years of gaming. I just don't want the story to become lame because of lack of real danger and I'm a bit afraid of it as these concepts are totally new to me.

Mr. Death: Well, yes, this example is helpful. But I'm still a bit afraid of bullet-proof concessionmancers, masters of jolly defeat (I'm joking but the last lines from my answer to Addicted2aa still apply).

Edrac: I think that you got it right. Especially in the last paragraph.That's why I'm posting questions here and ask for opinions. I have to balance my and my group's habits against this new approach somehow. Locating the sweetspot it is.

[Mr. Death]

Mr. Death: Well, yes, this example is helpful. But I'm still a bit afraid of bullet-proof concessionmancers, masters of jolly defeat (I'm joking but the last lines from my answer to Addicted2aa still apply).

Then, as GM, put your foot down and don't let that happen. A concession is supposed to be a significant setback, and as GM it's your job to make sure it is.

[Taran]

Addicted2aa: I'm just saying, I don't want the concessions to be a cheap get-away failsafe based on the rules. Plus, I find them to be difficult to justify in some situations. That's why I'm asking for game experience with this rule. Believe me, I'm not a control-obsessed PC killer - there have been few victims of my GM-ing over past twenty years of gaming. I just don't want the story to become lame because of lack of real danger and I'm a bit afraid of it as these concepts are totally new to me.

Mr. Death: Well, yes, this example is helpful. But I'm still a bit afraid of bullet-proof concessionmancers, masters of jolly defeat (I'm joking but the last lines from my answer to Addicted2aa still apply).

This was exactly my view when I started playing this.  The RPG system I played the most before this was D&D.  Losing a battle usually involved one or more dead PC's and a whole lot of sitting around before the combat got resolved.  At higher levels, the dead PC was more of an inconvenience because of raise dead, wish, ressurection etc...The plot/adventure mattered more.

The root of the issue here is the PC's want to win the conflict.  HOW they lose is irrelevant.  What's the difference if the PC's are dead or if the PC's are sitting, tied up in a burning building while the Master Mind cackles and escapes?  Both situations are severe losses to the PC's.  The Players are going to feel that - they'll know they got their asses handed to them.

The difference is the former involves everyone rolling new characters and the whole campaign getting a re-boot, while the latter involves an interesting advance in the plot and an excellent way to start the next session, as they try to escape a burning building.

[Jabberwocky]

"you know guys, I'd kind of like to keep those guys around for a bit, so they will drop a clue for you when they run, but they will get away or you will let them run. Deal?"

This is probably where I am most uneasy. This out-of-character approach of the players. I already understand that it's not a flaw of this game, it's a feature and probably a very good one for many but still it makes my head spin a little bit. I will definitely discuss all the new matter with my players at the first convenient occasion and I think we will give it a try ... and based on that experience we will discuss what to keep and what to omit.

[Edrac]

This is probably where I am most uneasy. This out-of-character approach of the players. I already understand that it's not a flaw of this game, it's a feature and probably a very good one for many but still it makes my head spin a little bit. I will definitely discuss all the new matter with my players at the first convenient occasion and I think we will give it a try ... and based on that experience we will discuss what to keep and what to omit.

The best pieces of advice I can give if you're going to go for it and try the system out are as follows:

Start the players at the LOWEST power level. While being a full wizard is cool and all, for a first time game the less complex a character is mechanically the better they'll grasp the system.

Try it RaW (or as close as possible) for a few sessions (I recomend 4 to 6) before you go fiddling with houserules, give it a chance.

Let your players know ahead of time and introduce stuff gradually. Aspects and the dice mechanics first, then manuvers and blocks as actions, then consequences, then concession. But be sure to tell them "hey there are some rules I will introduce later that may be applicable before I introduce them, don't freak out."

Make the firse campaign shorter and use it as a trial run. If ya'll like it gear up for a longer game. If not then maybe it's not the right game for your table.

[Addicted2aa]

This is probably where I am most uneasy. This out-of-character approach of the players. I already understand that it's not a flaw of this game, it's a feature and probably a very good one for many but still it makes my head spin a little bit. I will definitely discuss all the new matter with my players at the first convenient occasion and I think we will give it a try ... and based on that experience we will discuss what to keep and what to omit.

Personally, I would never break the 4th wall that badly. It can be done, and done well, but it's not necessary. When I discuss things on the meta-level(which is required in this game) I never hint at "my plot" or what the NPC's are doing, or what I want. I ask questions. Would this work for you? Can you think of a different solution? Are you sure that what you want to do? Do you have any other options here?
Usually not that vague or general, but hopefully you get the idea. I keep the meta focused on them, just instead of addressing the character, I address the player.

As to you're worry about Concessions as a fail safe, well, I've rarely had my players conceded, instead fighting to extreme consequences and being taken out far more often. When they do concede, I make sure it's not cheap, and when I concede, I give them the same opportunity. From what I understand of your group, your players will be looking to you to tell them whether a concession is good enough, as opposed to the table. And that's probably a good thing for your play style. Don't go easy on them when they concede. If the offer is good enough. Say no. Ask for another offer, especially since they are going to get FP anyway for losing. Losing isn't that bad a thing in this system, so they are already covered for not getting what they want. Make sure the concession is still a true loss.