New GM, question on being Taken Out by a big attack and avoiding consequences.

[Belial666]

1) Being Taken Out means your attacker decides your ultimate fate. If McKilligan the Bunrinator, 1st Lawbreaker extraordinaire, hits you with a Weapon 10 attack +11 bolt of banefire that takes you out, chances are the only thing left out of you will be some blackened teeth and a pile of ash at best. You can still decide exactly how you will be reduced to ashes within reason - screaming all the time, going in silence or throwing your death curse at the last second - but you cannot decide not to get burned because you were taken out. 

2) Concession cannot happen after an enemy attack roll to save you. After you see that McKilligan the Burninator has reduced you to a pile of blackened teeth and smoking ashes it is too late to decide you should have taken some consequences and ran like hell, instead. 

3) Even if you concede a battle, that does not mean you can get out Scot free. You may run like hell once you realize McKilligan the Burninator can reduce you to a pile of smoking ashes and blackened teeth at a flick of the wrist but that doesn't stop him from following you and immediately starting another conflict by hurling a bit of Banefire at your face if he really wants to kill you. After all, this is a new battle and your concession only covered the last one. 



In short, if an enemy really wants to kill you and you aren't strong or smart enough to stop them, they'll kill you. Because hey, if it were THAT easy to avoid death, every single enemy you ever fought in the game would be impossible to kill and you'd never be able to accomplish anything. Sort of like superhero comics. 

[Mr. Death]

3) Even if you concede a battle, that does not mean you can get out Scot free. You may run like hell once you realize McKilligan the Burninator can reduce you to a pile of smoking ashes and blackened teeth at a flick of the wrist but that doesn't stop him from following you and immediately starting another conflict by hurling a bit of Banefire at your face if he really wants to kill you. After all, this is a new battle and your concession only covered the last one. 

That would be an incredible dick move by the GM. The point of ending a conflict is to end the conflict, not start it up again immediately so the player gets cheated. This point goes against the rules and the spirit of the game, I feel.

[wyvern]

And you're mistaken -- on both points. The thread is not asking how to figure out a reasonable result, it's asking, "What is a reasonable result?" He's already decided how he's going to figure it out -- by asking the lot of us.

So your advice is that he should take further questions about reasonable results to us?  If so, I disagree - reasonable results should be a matter for the table to decide.  We can offer suggestions, sure, but ultimately, GamingInSeattle is going to have to deal with his own gaming group, and come up with results that said group finds reasonable, not results that the forum finds reasonable.

My response would be that, because he's been Taken Out, it's my decision what the result is. I'd listen, and if it sounds better than what I had in mind, I might go with it, but given the rules, it's my decision, not a negotiation. If he had wanted to have more say, he should have taken the consequences and stayed in the fight.

I didn't phrase this as a "after I've decided I'll take the consequences".  Even you admitted the player should understand what the stakes are, i.e. what they're going to lose if they don't take those consequences - and then, if that's too much, they can suggest an alternative - which you can then take, or not take.  Sounds like negotiation to me.

Ultimately, whether to take consequences or fold is the player's choice.  If that is a sufficiently informed choice, then there's room for negotiation - the player can suggest alternatives, the table can revolt and say that being reduced to a pile of ash isn't reasonable, and so on and so forth.  If that's not an informed choice, (such as in Belial666's example), then the only reasonable choice for a player becomes "take the consequences, because otherwise something much worse could happen" (or, if I ran into Belial666's example, the reasonable choice becomes "leave the game").  The only case where there's no room for negotiation is when the character literally can't take the hit.  Thus, that's the only case where they completely lose control of their fate.

Concessions are for negotiating. If you're taken out, then the outcome is by definition no longer in your hands.

In any game -- even this one -- sometimes you just lose a fight and have to deal with the results.

And oddly, I agree with all three of these statements.


To Belial666: I had some witty responses written up, but Mr. Death beat me to the punch.  Please read his response and take it to heart.

[Taran]

@Wyvern:

If the fight wasn't worth it, he should have conceded immediately before he was attacked.  What's the point of having a conflict in the first place if it's not worth anything?

He chose to fight instead.  By choosing to fight, he risked getting Taken-Out.  When he got hit, he had 2 choices:

1.  Take consequences and stay in the fight.  He could have, AFTER taking the hit and consequences, chosen to concede and negotiated a reasonable concession.

2. Get Taken Out.  Which means the biker CAN DO ANYTHING!  Kill him, give him an extreme consequence, change an aspect, disfigure him.  The Biker (who is the GM) gets to choose the result.

The Player gave up ALL narrative choice when he chose to get Taken Out instead of taking consequences. 

Player Choice.  The Player CHOSE to stay in the fight.  The Player CHOSE to get Taken Out and hand over his fate the GM.

Now the GM must decide what kind of fun complication is going to result.  It should be in line with the thoughts of the NPC.

[Mr. Death]

So your advice is that he should take further questions about reasonable results to us?  If so, I disagree - reasonable results should be a matter for the table to decide.  We can offer suggestions, sure, but ultimately, GamingInSeattle is going to have to deal with his own gaming group, and come up with results that said group finds reasonable, not results that the forum finds reasonable.

People come to this forum all the time to ask about reasonable results for all kinds of things. It's kind of what the forum is for.

And he's asking for something that, per the book, is not a negotiation among the table -- it's the GM's decision entirely.

I didn't phrase this as a "after I've decided I'll take the consequences".  Even you admitted the player should understand what the stakes are, i.e. what they're going to lose if they don't take those consequences - and then, if that's too much, they can suggest an alternative - which you can then take, or not take.  Sounds like negotiation to me.

It's allowing an informed decision, which is not nearly the same thing as a negotiation. It's not a negotiation because it is, ultimately, the GM's decision and his alone. Short of shouting down the player and gagging him, the GM can't stop the player from making suggestions, but the GM has no obligation to do anything besides say, "Well, if you're taken out, here's what happens."

Ultimately, whether to take consequences or fold is the player's choice.  If that is a sufficiently informed choice, then there's room for negotiation - the player can suggest alternatives, the table can revolt and say that being reduced to a pile of ash isn't reasonable, and so on and so forth.  If that's not an informed choice, (such as in Belial666's example), then the only reasonable choice for a player becomes "take the consequences, because otherwise something much worse could happen" (or, if I ran into Belial666's example, the reasonable choice becomes "leave the game").  The only case where there's no room for negotiation is when the character literally can't take the hit. 

I think perhaps you're using the term "negotiation" too broadly. Deciding whether or not to take the consequence is just the player making a decision. The GM doesn't have to accept or decline, and he can't stop a player from taking a consequence to keep fighting, so it isn't a negotiation. He may ask for information and clarification vis a vis, "What happens if I don't?", but that's not the same as negotiating.

But once those decisions are made -- specifically, the decision not to take a consequence and be taken out -- then there isn't negotiation. There might be discussion, but not negotiation, because whoever won that last roll of the dice has the ultimate authority in the exchange.

[Taran]

I will add, though, that there should be some kind of guidelines of what the stakes are in a given conflict.  It should be clearly stated before it starts so that everyone understands what to expect from a Take-Out.  Then, concessions are easier to do and negotiate.

IMO, the player was trying to get off easy without taking consequences.  I feel he was trying to 'cheat' the system.  If the GM had said, "oh, by the way, these bikers want to kill you" or "they're going to try to disfigure you to teach you a lesson."  Then everyone knows the stakes.  \

Would the player have let himself be taken out if he knew the result of a Take Out was losing an eye and having a permanent aspect change?  Probably not.

[Belial666]

That would be an incredible dick move by the GM. The point of ending a conflict is to end the conflict, not start it up again immediately so the player gets cheated. This point goes against the rules and the spirit of the game, I feel.

1) Sure is. But bad guys are known for dick moves. Case in point, Corpsetaker. Harry survives their mental conflict and tries to run away. She immediately goes after him. Ditto for many other bad guys. If they got a goal and your character is still preventing them from finishing that goal after the conflict, they aren't going to leave you alone simply because you won a single battle.

2) Harry is also known for it. In many cases, he gets beaten in a fight but he keeps at it until his opponents eventually are defeated.

3) Dick move or no, it doesn't go against the rules. Technically, what the bad guy is doing is refusing the concession - because concessions can be refused. If the bad guy's goals include killing your character why would they let you live? Yes, the GM must warn that death is on the table. Yes, the GM must warn if the potential fight is one the PCs cannot win. But once those warnings are given and if the PCs enter that fight regardless of those warnings, they cannot bitch if their characters die. After all, they could have avoided starting a fight in the first place.

[Mr. Death]

1) Sure is. But bad guys are known for dick moves.

Character =/= GM.

2) Harry is also known for it. In many cases, he gets beaten in a fight but he keeps at it until his opponents eventually are defeated.

Mechanically, he hasn't lost the conflict, even if he appears to have been beaten in a fight. Narrative =/= mechanics.

Harry gets beaten then comes back to fight in an entirely different scene later on, but that is totally different from what you said.

3) Dick move or no, it doesn't go against the rules.Technically, what the bad guy is doing is refusing the concession - because concessions can be refused.

Except he's not, because you said

After all, this is a new battle and your concession only covered the last one.

And the Characters aren't the ones who accept or refuse the concession. That is a decision for the GM and the players.

If the bad guy's goals include killing your character why would they let you live?

Again: GM =/= Character.

A concession is a mechanic used among the GM and the players. The Characters don't get a say. It's a decision made on the mechanical level, not the narrative level. It doesn't matter how much the villain wants to kill the PCs, because the GM and the players have worked out a concession that says the fight is over and they survived.

The villain might show up later, but the fight scene now is over and everyone goes home to lick their wounds.

[GamingInSeattle]

First, thank you all for your input!

This is the understanding I've come to. (Please remember this was our first combat and we got some things wrong)

Evan (the PC character) chose to take no consequences for the 8 points of stress coming in and was then taken out by Twitchy (the NPC biker/minion swinging a chain).  We didn't know quite how to handle it last night but this is how I would play it out now (and I've emailed the player to get his input, we won't retcon, this is for future combat).

As such Twitchy gets to decide how Evan was taken out.  Twitchy as the attacker here has the stronger negotiating stance in a taken out setting.  Twitchy would declare that Evan was 'bashed in the head real good' and I would propose to Evan's player that Evan wakes up in the hospital the next day with a concussion and a new scar on his head.  Evan would also have a temporary mild consequence of 'Ow my head' for 24 hours after getting out of the hospital.  I'd be open to negotiation but this is a good starting point I believe for an 8 point stress attack.

Now, I've since explained to my player that had Evan taken some consequences, then this could have happened.

Twitchy delivers the 8 point stress attack.  Evan takes a mild and moderate stress (bruised wrist & chain to the head) which reduces the stress attack by 6 so adds a check mark in his 2nd stress box (he only has 2 stress boxes).  On his next turn before Twitchy attacks again, Evan could concede, gain 2 Fate Points for the two consequences he took (Cashing Out) and negotiate (In the stronger position now) that he collapses against a dumpster but wakes up when the police/emts show up. 

To compare:

1) Getting taken out by Twichy, his character is out of play for the full day, wakes up in a hospital with a 24 hour mild consequence and a new scar.
vs
2) Taking a mild and moderate consequence, he concedes on his turn, gains 2 fate points and wakes up when the cops/EMTS show up.  Assuming the ETMS can treat his mild consequence (bruised wrist), I'd let the recover process start then and it would be gone by the end of the next scene (Likely a meeting with a local NPC).  If he stopped by the emergency room/walk in clinic later that day he could start his recovery on his moderate consequence (Bruised Ribs) and by the end of next session that would be taken care of.

These two ways the conflict could play out seems to show why taking consequences is important.  Also thank you for reminding me that it is not always time that is the cost of being taken out.  Had the player had an item he valued or a clue he was working on, I might have proposed the item broke or that he could no longer remember the clue, thus closing off (temporarily) an avenue of investigation.

I look forward to posting more about DFRPG as the game progresses!

~ GIS

[Mr. Death]

First, thank you all for your input!

This is the understanding I've come to.

Evan (the PC character) chose to take no consequences for the 8 points of stress coming in and was then taken out by Twitchy (the NPC biker/minion swinging a chain).

As such Twitchy gets to decide how Evan was taken out.  Twitchy as the attacker here has the stronger negotiating stance in a taken out setting.  Twitchy would declare that Evan was 'bashed in the head real good' and I would propose to Evan's player that Evan wakes up in the hospital the next day with a concussion and a new scar on his head.  Evan would also have a temporary mild consequence of 'Ow my head' for 24 hours after getting out of the hospital.  I'd be open to negotiation but this is a good starting point I believe for an 8 point stress attack.

Now, I've since explained to my player that had Evan taken some consequences, then this could have happened.

Twitchy delivers the 8 point stress attack.  Evan takes a mild and moderate stress (bruised wrist & chain to the head) which reduces the stress attack by 6 so adds a check mark in his 2nd stress box (he only has 2 stress boxes).  On his next turn before Twitchy attacks again, Evan could concede, gain 2 Fate Points for the two consequences he took (Cashing Out) and negotiate (In the stronger position now) that he collapses against a dumpster but wakes up when the police/emts show up. 

To compare:

1) Getting taken out by Twichy, his character is out of play for the full day, wakes up in a hospital with a 24 hour mild consequence and a new scar.
vs
2) Taking a mild and moderate consequence, he concedes on his turn, gains 2 fate points and wakes up when the cops/EMTS show up.  Assuming the ETMS can treat his mild consequence (bruised wrist), I'd let the recover process start then and it would be gone by the end of the next scene (Likely a meeting with a local NPC).  If he stopped by the emergency room/walk in clinic later that day he could start his recovery on his mild consequence (Bruised Ribs) and by the end of next session that would be taken care of.

These two ways the conflict could play out seems to show why taking consequences is important.  Also thank you for reminding me that it is not always time that is the cost of being taken out.  Had the player had an item he valued or a clue he was working on, I might have proposed the item broke or that he could no longer remember the clue, thus closing off (temporarily) an avenue of investigation.

I look forward to posting more about DFRPG as the game progresses!

~ GIS

Yeah, seems you've got it pretty well in mind, now.

[wyvern]

Yeah, seems you've got it pretty well in mind, now.

Seconded; that all sounds about right to me.

[gojj]

I would just like to add something. Even though being knocked unconscious for a couple of days seems like a perfectly reasonable result of being taken out, I feel very strongly that the player should not miss any game time as a result of being taken out. In other words, the story should pick up 2 days later when the player character wakes up, or at least there should not be a full scene where the player is unable to do anything. This may have been taken for granted, or someone may have already mentioned this, but I think it's important.

Also, I think it is important to stress to players (especially new ones) that loosing a combat (by concession or being taken-out) in a FATE game is not a bad thing, it just changes the direction of the story. I think we are all so trained from other games (board, video, card, etc.) that loosing is bad, that we sometimes forget that this is a game based around story, not around rolling a bigger number than the opponent. Speaking from personal experience, I used to hate taking consequences and would never concede, because I had it ingrained in my mind that loosing was an undesirable outcome. But heck, look at Luke at the end of Empire; the guy lost his hand, his lightsaber, found out his father was one of the the most evil people in the galaxy, and his best friend was frozen in carbonite, but the story goes on. So if you have a player who is squeamish about concession and consequences, I would point them to movies and/or books. Heroes loose conflicts all the time, bit its all part of a larger story.

It got a bit long-winded towards the end there but hopefully this was helpful in some way.

[Sanctaphrax]

Regarding the concession debate earlier: this isn't a concession, it's a take-out.

IMO, the player was trying to get off easy without taking consequences.  I feel he was trying to 'cheat' the system.

I wouldn't call that cheating. I'd call it the game working as intended. Sometimes being taken out is better than taking consequences.

The villain might show up later, but the fight scene now is over and everyone goes home to lick their wounds.

Well, that depends on the concession terms. It's true that the characters get no say, but I could imagine the players negotiating a concession that really just delays the fight by a few minutes. Might make a good way to clear some stress tracks, especially if someone is running low on spells.

[Taran]

I wouldn't call that cheating. I'd call it the game working as intended. Sometimes being taken out is better than taking consequences.

Cheating was a strong word.  Gaming it might be better.  Trying to lose without losing, maybe.


@Gaming:
Your resolution seems good.

For the scar, you could tweak an existing aspect.  If he was Wizard of the White Council, he could now be Scarred WIzard of the White Council.  You can compel it for social stuff, probably and, with an appropriate resource roll or Scholarship (plastic surgery) he could change it back at a milestone.

If he doesn't like the take-out result, remind him that, by the book, even a concession should be a significant draw-back.  I think it recommends something in the realm of a moderate consequence.  So, you could emphasize that you're being generous by having him only take the mild consequence and a tweaked aspect.  The Take Out could have been much worse.

Once again, having the expectations of a fight spelled out helps with concessions.  Obviously, a Moderate Consequence for a concession wouldn't make sense in some situations.  It all depends on the goals of the opponents.

[Jreafman]

First, thank you all for your input!

This is the understanding I've come to. (Please remember this was our first combat and we got some things wrong)

Evan (the PC character) chose to take no consequences for the 8 points of stress coming in and was then taken out by Twitchy (the NPC biker/minion swinging a chain).  We didn't know quite how to handle it last night but this is how I would play it out now (and I've emailed the player to get his input, we won't retcon, this is for future combat).

As such Twitchy gets to decide how Evan was taken out.  Twitchy as the attacker here has the stronger negotiating stance in a taken out setting.  Twitchy would declare that Evan was 'bashed in the head real good' and I would propose to Evan's player that Evan wakes up in the hospital the next day with a concussion and a new scar on his head.  Evan would also have a temporary mild consequence of 'Ow my head' for 24 hours after getting out of the hospital.  I'd be open to negotiation but this is a good starting point I believe for an 8 point stress attack.

Now, I've since explained to my player that had Evan taken some consequences, then this could have happened.

Twitchy delivers the 8 point stress attack.  Evan takes a mild and moderate stress (bruised wrist & chain to the head) which reduces the stress attack by 6 so adds a check mark in his 2nd stress box (he only has 2 stress boxes).  On his next turn before Twitchy attacks again, Evan could concede, gain 2 Fate Points for the two consequences he took (Cashing Out) and negotiate (In the stronger position now) that he collapses against a dumpster but wakes up when the police/emts show up. 

To compare:

1) Getting taken out by Twichy, his character is out of play for the full day, wakes up in a hospital with a 24 hour mild consequence and a new scar.
vs
2) Taking a mild and moderate consequence, he concedes on his turn, gains 2 fate points and wakes up when the cops/EMTS show up.  Assuming the ETMS can treat his mild consequence (bruised wrist), I'd let the recover process start then and it would be gone by the end of the next scene (Likely a meeting with a local NPC).  If he stopped by the emergency room/walk in clinic later that day he could start his recovery on his moderate consequence (Bruised Ribs) and by the end of next session that would be taken care of.

These two ways the conflict could play out seems to show why taking consequences is important.  Also thank you for reminding me that it is not always time that is the cost of being taken out.  Had the player had an item he valued or a clue he was working on, I might have proposed the item broke or that he could no longer remember the clue, thus closing off (temporarily) an avenue of investigation.

I look forward to posting more about DFRPG as the game progresses!

~ GIS

I think it's unanimous! Everyone thinks you have it well in hand now. Awesome sauce.