Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [FateRPG] Concession in lethal combats

Expand Messages
  • Darren Hill
    I was about to make this point, too. It s handy, but not essential, for pc-players to grasp that concessions are things they do as players, not characters.
    Message 1 of 26 , Mar 9, 2013
      I was about to make this point, too. It's handy, but not essential, for pc-players to grasp that concessions are things they do as players, not characters. It's VITAL for the GM to realise this, when controlling their NPCs.
      It's perfectly fine for a GM to control NPCs who wnat the players characters dead. The GM, though, should choose concessions based on whatever they think will make the session better, more dramatic, more challenging, funnier, or whatever suits the specific scene and adventure. They don't have to fit the concession to the desires of the NPC. 
      The same is true for non-GM players, but the game doesn't break if players don't want to make a separation between Player and Character. It can, if the GM can't make that separation.

      On 9 March 2013 06:05, Jetan <dtribble@...> wrote:
       

      An important note: concessions are things that players do, not characters. Thus, although the NPC wants the player dead, the GM does not (if the GM wants you dead, then a "random" meteor drops on your car; the end).  The considerations for the GM should be more about is it fun, consistent with the story, appropriately reflecting that the character (not the player) lost, etc. "How about just as he stabs me, I do manage to teleport away, but so strain my magic I can't do any for a few days?"



      On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Hollis McCray <ascensionschild@...> wrote:




      On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Dustin Evermore <devermore@...> wrote:
       

      The concession only happens if all parties agree. So if someone wants to kill the PC, they discard the proposed concession and it's a fight to the... Taken Out. :)


      And I probably wouldn't make Taken Out dead in any case. Party Kills are boring, and we don't want to do boring in Fate. And there are much worse things we can do to player characters than kill them...
      --
      Hollis McCray
      aka The Fifth Wanderer

      ascensionschild@...

      "GMing is like herding cats. Wet, angry cats who are pumped full of LSD and methamphetamines." - Stolen from some forum sig somewhere



    • Christopher Bartlett
      I m unclear about the concept of refusing a concession. I could see refusing a concession on the grounds that the offered piece of story is wildly at odds
      Message 2 of 26 , Mar 9, 2013

        I’m unclear about the concept of refusing a concession.  I could see refusing a concession on the grounds that the offered piece of story is wildly at odds with the rest of play, but I figured that if a player conceded, the GM would be obligated to accept it.

         

        I guess the answer to my original question though would be that if I as the GM feel that a potentially lethal combat situation is the logical progression of the story, I should inform my players that there will be no concessions accepted?

         

        This feels like a hole being filled with hand-waving to me.  I think it’s all very well for us to say that party death is less awesome than other alternatives, but I do come from the school of thought that says that an awesome story comes from awesome characters, including those the GM creates as opposition, allies or even window-dressing.  As such, I am less willing to hand-wave away the “desires” of the npcs because to me that actually detracts from the awesome of the story.  So, if it would be logical and reasonable for a given NPC to desire the death of a character, it would feel like a cop-out to tame that by convention.  I tend to run games on the grittier, less pulpish end of things, though a good pulp is a wonderful tonic from time to time.

         

        So I’m trying to find a way for the mechanics to support that sort of game as well.  If you tell me that this isn’t a good fit, I’ll accept that and figure out a way around it, but it seems to me there ought to be some way to make it work.

         

        Thanks for listening to me noodle.

         

                        Chris Bartlett

         

      • Brad Murray
        I ll refuse a concession because it s not tough enough -- it doesn t represent *losing* sufficiently. I ll ask for more. Concessions are a negotiation, recall,
        Message 3 of 26 , Mar 9, 2013
          I'll refuse a concession because it's not tough enough -- it doesn't represent *losing* sufficiently. I'll ask for more. Concessions are a negotiation, recall, to find something interesting to go to other than simply losing. Sometimes players will withdraw the offer because they think they can still win, and play goes to the desperate end. Which is often also awesome.


          On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Christopher Bartlett <themusicalbrewer@...> wrote:
           

          I’m unclear about the concept of refusing a concession.  I could see refusing a concession on the grounds that the offered piece of story is wildly at odds with the rest of play, but I figured that if a player conceded, the GM would be obligated to accept it.

           

          I guess the answer to my original question though would be that if I as the GM feel that a potentially lethal combat situation is the logical progression of the story, I should inform my players that there will be no concessions accepted?

           

          This feels like a hole being filled with hand-waving to me.  I think it’s all very well for us to say that party death is less awesome than other alternatives, but I do come from the school of thought that says that an awesome story comes from awesome characters, including those the GM creates as opposition, allies or even window-dressing.  As such, I am less willing to hand-wave away the “desires” of the npcs because to me that actually detracts from the awesome of the story.  So, if it would be logical and reasonable for a given NPC to desire the death of a character, it would feel like a cop-out to tame that by convention.  I tend to run games on the grittier, less pulpish end of things, though a good pulp is a wonderful tonic from time to time.

           

          So I’m trying to find a way for the mechanics to support that sort of game as well.  If you tell me that this isn’t a good fit, I’ll accept that and figure out a way around it, but it seems to me there ought to be some way to make it work.

           

          Thanks for listening to me noodle.

           

                          Chris Bartlett

           




          --
          Brad Murray (halfjack)
          VSCA Publishing
        • Dustin Evermore
          ... The GM isn t obligated to do any such thing. He should be motivated to tell a good story, and for some stories, that means tragedy should be a potential
          Message 4 of 26 , Mar 9, 2013

            On Mar 9, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "Christopher Bartlett" <themusicalbrewer@...> wrote:

            I’m unclear about the concept of refusing a concession.  I could see refusing a concession on the grounds that the offered piece of story is wildly at odds with the rest of play, but I figured that if a player conceded, the GM would be obligated to accept it.


            The GM isn't obligated to do any such thing. He should be motivated to tell a good story, and for some stories, that means tragedy should be a potential consequence.

             

            I guess the answer to my original question though would be that if I as the GM feel that a potentially lethal combat situation is the logical progression of the story, I should inform my players that there will be no concessions accepted?


            That would be kind. I'd recommend it.

            However, if a player offers a concession for his character when battling a man-eating shark, as a GM you should feel no obligation to accept that, warning or no. Sharks are interested in eating, not letting prey get away. They'll go for a Taken Out every time. That doesn't mean character death, only probably character death. It's your table's story so what Taken Out means is up to whoever's character managed it.

             

            This feels like a hole being filled with hand-waving to me.  I think it’s all very well for us to say that party death is less awesome than other alternatives, but I do come from the school of thought that says that an awesome story comes from awesome characters, including those the GM creates as opposition, allies or even window-dressing.  As such, I am less willing to hand-wave away the “desires” of the npcs because to me that actually detracts from the awesome of the story.  So, if it would be logical and reasonable for a given NPC to desire the death of a character, it would feel like a cop-out to tame that by convention.  I tend to run games on the grittier, less pulpish end of things, though a good pulp is a wonderful tonic from time to time.

             

            So I’m trying to find a way for the mechanics to support that sort of game as well.  If you tell me that this isn’t a good fit, I’ll accept that and figure out a way around it, but it seems to me there ought to be some way to make it work.

             

            Thanks for listening to me noodle.



          • John Rudd
            ... Doesn t that play right into the whole players make concessions, not characters statement? Sharks are interested in eating and not letting prey get away.
            Message 5 of 26 , Mar 9, 2013



              On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Dustin Evermore <devermore@...> wrote:

              However, if a player offers a concession for his character when battling a man-eating shark, as a GM you should feel no obligation to accept that, warning or no. Sharks are interested in eating, not letting prey get away. They'll go for a Taken Out every time. That doesn't mean character death, only probably character death. It's your table's story so what Taken Out means is up to whoever's character managed it.


              Doesn't that play right into the whole "players make concessions, not characters" statement?

              Sharks are interested in eating and not letting prey get away.  GMs are not Sharks.  GMs are interested in good/fun stories with some amount of dramatic tension.  So, while the shark might not accept a concession, if it makes story sense, the GM should be open to the idea in that exact situation.
            • Brad Murray
              ... Remember that you are negotiating with the ref, not the shark. You re negotiating a story result, not a change in the shark s motivation or behaviour. --
              Message 6 of 26 , Mar 9, 2013



                On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Dustin Evermore <devermore@...> wrote:
                However, if a player offers a concession for his character when battling a man-eating shark, as a GM you should feel no obligation to accept that, warning or no. Sharks are interested in eating, not letting prey get away. They'll go for a Taken Out every time. 
                 
                Remember that you are negotiating with the ref, not the shark. You're negotiating a story result, not a change in the shark's motivation or behaviour.

                --
                Brad Murray (halfjack)
                VSCA Publishing
              • Dustin Evermore
                ... Yes. So? I m not sure what you are arguing here.
                Message 7 of 26 , Mar 9, 2013

                  On Mar 9, 2013, at 5:00 PM, Brad Murray <bjmurray.halfjack@...> wrote:

                  On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Dustin Evermore <devermore@...> wrote:
                  However, if a player offers a concession for his character when battling a man-eating shark, as a GM you should feel no obligation to accept that, warning or no. Sharks are interested in eating, not letting prey get away. They'll go for a Taken Out every time. 
                   
                  Remember that you are negotiating with the ref, not the shark. You're negotiating a story result, not a change in the shark's motivation or behaviour.

                  Yes. So? I'm not sure what you are arguing here.


                • Brett Ritter
                  ... I don t think this is a conversation that s going to go very far. Some groups find PC death to be an instrumental part of good story. Other groups find it
                  Message 8 of 26 , Mar 9, 2013
                    On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Dustin Evermore <devermore@...> wrote:
                    > > Remember that you are negotiating with the ref, not the shark. You're negotiating a story result, not a change in the shark's motivation or behaviour.
                    >
                    > Yes. So? I'm not sure what you are arguing here.

                    I don't think this is a conversation that's going to go very far.
                    Some groups find PC death to be an instrumental part of good story.
                    Other groups find it to be destructive to good story. The two will
                    not be able to discuss the topic with one another to any depth while
                    maintaining mutual understanding.

                    For me, PCs in a truly dangerous situation can always concede, because
                    it's a rare story where I enjoy the death/utter failure of heroes.
                    Others (say, for example, George R. R. Martin) consider that some
                    scenes require death to be unavoidable absent fantastic rolls.

                    --
                    Brett Ritter / SwiftOne
                    swiftone@...
                  • Travis Casey
                    ... He s saying that the GM has multiple jobs - one of them is to play NPCs, such as the shark. However, that does not mean that the GM s decision about
                    Message 9 of 26 , Mar 9, 2013
                      On Mar 9, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Dustin Evermore wrote:

                       

                      On Mar 9, 2013, at 5:00 PM, Brad Murray <bjmurray.halfjack@...> wrote:


                      On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Dustin Evermore <devermore@...> wrote:
                      However, if a player offers a concession for his character when battling a man-eating shark, as a GM you should feel no obligation to accept that, warning or no. Sharks are interested in eating, not letting prey get away. They'll go for a Taken Out every time. 
                       
                      Remember that you are negotiating with the ref, not the shark. You're negotiating a story result, not a change in the shark's motivation or behaviour.

                      Yes. So? I'm not sure what you are arguing here.

                      He's saying that the GM has multiple jobs - one of them is to play NPCs, such as the shark.  However, that does not mean that the GM's decision about whether to accept a concession should be based on that part of their job.

                      The players are in the same boat.  Take Compels, for example - obviously, the characters would rather avoid all these complications.  The players, however, may accept compels in spite of this, and even generate compels for their characters, because their goals are not identical to those of the characters they're playing.  This comes in with concessions as well - players may accept a concession that their characters wouldn't like, because they recognize that it's going to result in a better story.

                      The GM has the same freedom - he or she shouldn't feel bound to go by whether the opposition in the scene would want to accept the offered concession.

                      To put it another way, *concessions don't exist in the game universe*.  They are purely a meta construct, and neither players nor GM should be dealing with them from the point of view of the characters in the game universe.

                      --
                      Travis Casey
                      Reality is vastly overrated.



                    • PK Levine
                      ... The point is that the *shark* doesn t decide whether to accept a concession. Neither does the GM on behalf of the shark. The decision on the concession
                      Message 10 of 26 , Mar 9, 2013
                        On Saturday, March 09, 2013 06:03:14 pm Dustin Evermore wrote:
                        > > Remember that you are negotiating with the ref, not the shark. You're
                        > > negotiating a story result, not a change in the shark's motivation or
                        > > behaviour.
                        >
                        > Yes. So? I'm not sure what you are arguing here.

                        The point is that the *shark* doesn't decide whether to accept a concession.
                        Neither does "the GM on behalf of the shark." The decision on the concession
                        is made by the GM, based on whether it's a fair "loss" for the conflict,
                        character, and story.

                        So let's say a PC is attacked by a shark and is losing badly. He can ask to
                        concede. The shark's feelings on the matter are immaterial *except* as context
                        -- the GM nods and says, "Okay, the shark's goal is to eat you. Where do you
                        want to compromise?"

                        Player: "How about the shark eats a huge chunk of me and gets his meal, but
                        then gets scared off by a boat motor before finishing me off?"

                        GM: "I can see that, but we *just* started this conflict, so you know you won't
                        be unbloodied. I think you need to lose an arm."

                        Player: "Ouch. Look, I'll be honest -- I don't think I want to play this PC
                        with one arm. I'd rather let him die and make a new one if I had to do that. I
                        conceived of him as a gymnast, remember? What if instead I agree to take a
                        severe consequence of 'Half-Eaten and Gushing Blood'?"

                        GM: "Okay, but that's part of your concession, so you don't get extra FP for
                        it when conceding."

                        Concession, like many things in Fate, is a meta-discussion between the player
                        and the GM -- the actual wants and needs of their *characters* only serves to
                        set the context of the discussion. In particular, note that the shark's
                        motivation and goal didn't change in any way.

                        PK
                      • John Rudd
                        ... So, the decision about whether or not to accept the concession should be based on: (a) Does the GM think this is a good story outcome? and NOT based upon:
                        Message 11 of 26 , Mar 9, 2013



                          On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Dustin Evermore <devermore@...> wrote:
                           


                          On Mar 9, 2013, at 5:00 PM, Brad Murray <bjmurray.halfjack@...> wrote:

                          On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Dustin Evermore <devermore@...> wrote:
                          However, if a player offers a concession for his character when battling a man-eating shark, as a GM you should feel no obligation to accept that, warning or no. Sharks are interested in eating, not letting prey get away. They'll go for a Taken Out every time. 
                           
                          Remember that you are negotiating with the ref, not the shark. You're negotiating a story result, not a change in the shark's motivation or behaviour.

                          Yes. So? I'm not sure what you are arguing here.


                          So, the decision about whether or not to accept the concession should be based on:

                          (a) Does the GM think this is a good story outcome?

                          and NOT based upon:

                          (b) Does the Shark want to negotiate a lesser outcome than feeding its hunger?



                          Your statement about sharks just being hungry killing machines answers (b).  It has nothing to do with (a).
                        • Lisa Steele
                          Think more broadly. You re in open ocean -- you re about to be eaten by the sharks -- you want to offer a concession. GM says raises an eyebrow. You say -- ok,
                          Message 12 of 26 , Mar 9, 2013
                            Think more broadly. You're in open ocean -- you're about to be eaten by the sharks -- you want to offer a concession. GM says raises an eyebrow. You say -- ok, I pass out just as a submarine rises under me...GM, you pick who's capturing me and why. Admittedly, I'm a SotC GM, but I'd take that concession.
                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: Dustin Evermore
                            Sent: Mar 9, 2013 5:55 PM
                            To: FateRPG@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [FateRPG] Concession in lethal combats




                            On Mar 9, 2013, at 4:46 PM, "Christopher Bartlett" <themusicalbrewer@...> wrote:

                            I’m unclear about the concept of refusing a concession.  I could see refusing a concession on the grounds that the offered piece of story is wildly at odds with the rest of play, but I figured that if a player conceded, the GM would be obligated to accept it.


                            The GM isn't obligated to do any such thing. He should be motivated to tell a good story, and for some stories, that means tragedy should be a potential consequence.

                            I guess the answer to my original question though would be that if I as the GM feel that a potentially lethal combat situation is the logical progression of the story, I should inform my players that there will be no concessions accepted?


                            That would be kind. I'd recommend it.

                            However, if a player offers a concession for his character when battling a man-eating shark, as a GM you should feel no obligation to accept that, warning or no. Sharks are interested in eating, not letting prey get away. They'll go for a Taken Out every time. That doesn't mean character death, only probably character death. It's your table's story so what Taken Out means is up to whoever's character managed it.

                            This feels like a hole being filled with hand-waving to me.  I think it’s all very well for us to say that party death is less awesome than other alternatives, but I do come from the school of thought that says that an awesome story comes from awesome characters, including those the GM creates as opposition, allies or even window-dressing.  As such, I am less willing to hand-wave away the “desires” of the npcs because to me that actually detracts from the awesome of the story.  So, if it would be logical and reasonable for a given NPC to desire the death of a character, it would feel like a cop-out to tame that by convention.  I tend to run games on the grittier, less pulpish end of things, though a good pulp is a wonderful tonic from time to time.

                            So I’m trying to find a way for the mechanics to support that sort of game as well.  If you tell me that this isn’t a good fit, I’ll accept that and figure out a way around it, but it seems to me there ought to be some way to make it work.

                            Thanks for listening to me noodle.





                          • Travis Casey
                            Something else to remember: a lot of traditional RPGs had death penalties - if your character died, your next one either might not be or definitely would not
                            Message 13 of 26 , Mar 9, 2013
                              Something else to remember: a lot of traditional RPGs had "death penalties" - if your character died, your next one either might not be or definitely would not be as mechanically powerful.  In systems that don't, like Fate, players can come to understand that their character dying isn't a loss for them as a player.  Instead, it's an opportunity to create a new character and bring new things into the story.

                              When you have players who are thinking that way, "my character dies, but the rest of the party accomplishes X" becomes a perfectly logical concession to achieve a major story goal - essentially, the player is offering to sit out the rest of the session, or at least a scene or two.

                              Indeed, in the current Dresden Files game I'm in, we've had players decide they wanted their characters to die twice in the about two years the game's been running.

                              --
                              Travis Casey
                            • Chester Mealer
                              One thing I ll mention because it hasn t been brought up is that as GM you do need to remember the game is the story of the characters not the NPCs If you have
                              Message 14 of 26 , Mar 9, 2013
                                One thing I'll mention because it hasn't been brought up is that as GM you do need to remember the game is the story of the characters not the NPCs If you have a player offering a concession it's because the player is saying "This is definitely not where the character's story ends." Now the group (players and GM) together is the arbiter of that story so it's really incumbent upon you as the GM to find a way to accept the compel. It's incumbent upon the player to realize that the character did lose the encounter and so the end result (the terms of the concession) must clearly reflect that.

                                Chester Mealer


                                On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Christopher Bartlett <themusicalbrewer@...> wrote:
                                 

                                How does concession work if the NPC side has the specific intent to kill the PCs?  Since this is the intention, how does the PC concede and survive without undermining the victory declaration of the NPC side?  I can see how concession works when combat is incidental to achieving another goal, but when the assassin is trying to kill the PC, how does concession work?

                                 

                                                Chris Bartlett


                              • Dustin Evermore
                                ... I think this is getting unnecessarily nit-picky here. The GM is running the sharks as he does all NPCs. Of course it s the GM making the decisions and is
                                Message 15 of 26 , Mar 10, 2013

                                  On Mar 9, 2013, at 5:39 PM, John Rudd <johnkzin@...> wrote:

                                  On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Dustin Evermore <devermore@...> wrote:
                                   


                                  On Mar 9, 2013, at 5:00 PM, Brad Murray <bjmurray.halfjack@...> wrote:

                                  On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Dustin Evermore <devermore@...> wrote:
                                  However, if a player offers a concession for his character when battling a man-eating shark, as a GM you should feel no obligation to accept that, warning or no. Sharks are interested in eating, not letting prey get away. They'll go for a Taken Out every time. 
                                   
                                  Remember that you are negotiating with the ref, not the shark. You're negotiating a story result, not a change in the shark's motivation or behaviour.

                                  Yes. So? I'm not sure what you are arguing here.


                                  So, the decision about whether or not to accept the concession should be based on:

                                  (a) Does the GM think this is a good story outcome?

                                  and NOT based upon:

                                  (b) Does the Shark want to negotiate a lesser outcome than feeding its hunger? 



                                  Your statement about sharks just being hungry killing machines answers (b).  It has nothing to do with (a).


                                  I think this is getting unnecessarily nit-picky here. The GM is running the sharks as he does all NPCs. Of course it's the GM making the decisions and is with whom you negotiate. Making sure a good story is told is always the GM's first responsibility. Do we really need to continually restate it in order to understand one another?





                                • PK Levine
                                  ... I disagree. The difference between the NPC shark s desires and the GM s desires is *huge*, not nitpicky. ... The reason it keeps getting restated is
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Mar 10, 2013
                                    On Sunday, March 10, 2013 07:20:53 pm Dustin Evermore wrote:
                                    > > Your statement about sharks just being hungry killing machines answers
                                    > > (b). It has nothing to do with (a).
                                    >
                                    > I think this is getting unnecessarily nit-picky here. The GM is running the
                                    > sharks as he does all NPCs.

                                    I disagree. The difference between "the NPC shark's desires" and "the GM's
                                    desires" is *huge*, not nitpicky.

                                    > Of course it's the GM making the decisions and
                                    > is with whom you negotiate. Making sure a good story is told is always the
                                    > GM's first responsibility. Do we really need to continually restate it in
                                    > order to understand one another?

                                    The reason it keeps getting restated is because you stated more than once that
                                    a concession depended on whether the *shark* would find it acceptable, and that
                                    isn't the case.

                                    PK
                                  • Bill Burdick
                                    I think the key point is this question: Will this make the game suck for the player who s about to lose their PC? If a player asks to concede, that probably
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Mar 11, 2013
                                      I think the key point is this question: Will this make the game suck for the player who's about to lose their PC?

                                      If a player asks to concede, that probably means the game would suck for them if their PC dies.

                                      If the player's OK with their PC's death, then that's fine, but they probably won't offer a concession in that case.  Making the game suck for someone (for any reason) is not OK in FATE Core: "Both players and gamemasters also have a secondary job: make everyone around you look awesome" -- page 8 of the draft.  And it would indeed be the GM who is making the game suck, because seeing no other possible option than death is just thinking inside the box which the GM has created.

                                      Unbelievable coincidences, unknown allies, supernatural events, and the like are the meat and potatoes of fantastic adventures (and Fantastic Adventures puts the "FA" in FATE).


                                      Bill


                                      On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Dustin Evermore <devermore@...> wrote:
                                       


                                      On Mar 9, 2013, at 5:39 PM, John Rudd <johnkzin@...> wrote:

                                      On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Dustin Evermore <devermore@...> wrote:
                                       


                                      On Mar 9, 2013, at 5:00 PM, Brad Murray <bjmurray.halfjack@...> wrote:

                                      On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Dustin Evermore <devermore@...> wrote:
                                      However, if a player offers a concession for his character when battling a man-eating shark, as a GM you should feel no obligation to accept that, warning or no. Sharks are interested in eating, not letting prey get away. They'll go for a Taken Out every time. 
                                       
                                      Remember that you are negotiating with the ref, not the shark. You're negotiating a story result, not a change in the shark's motivation or behaviour.

                                      Yes. So? I'm not sure what you are arguing here.


                                      So, the decision about whether or not to accept the concession should be based on:

                                      (a) Does the GM think this is a good story outcome?

                                      and NOT based upon:

                                      (b) Does the Shark want to negotiate a lesser outcome than feeding its hunger? 



                                      Your statement about sharks just being hungry killing machines answers (b).  It has nothing to do with (a).


                                      I think this is getting unnecessarily nit-picky here. The GM is running the sharks as he does all NPCs. Of course it's the GM making the decisions and is with whom you negotiate. Making sure a good story is told is always the GM's first responsibility. Do we really need to continually restate it in order to understand one another?






                                    • Brad Murray
                                      Another possibility to consider is the offer of a concession by a player that in fact kills the character -- perhaps a secondary objective is not being meet
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Mar 11, 2013
                                        Another possibility to consider is the offer of a concession by a player that in fact kills the character -- perhaps a secondary objective is not being meet (saving a child, maybe) but you are still kicking the opposition's ass. Just not fast enough. A valid concession (at my table) for a player might be "I die but we save the kid". It's not entirely clear who is conceding -- the villain gives up the kid but the character dies. The players win, but the villain escapes, maybe "winning" on her terms. But it still seems like an awesome moment you would not want the rules to forbid.


                                        On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Bill Burdick <bill.burdick@...> wrote:
                                         

                                        I think the key point is this question: Will this make the game suck for the player who's about to lose their PC?

                                        If a player asks to concede, that probably means the game would suck for them if their PC dies.

                                        If the player's OK with their PC's death, then that's fine, but they probably won't offer a concession in that case.  Making the game suck for someone (for any reason) is not OK in FATE Core: "Both players and gamemasters also have a secondary job: make everyone around you look awesome" -- page 8 of the draft.  And it would indeed be the GM who is making the game suck, because seeing no other possible option than death is just thinking inside the box which the GM has created.

                                        Unbelievable coincidences, unknown allies, supernatural events, and the like are the meat and potatoes of fantastic adventures (and Fantastic Adventures puts the "FA" in FATE).


                                        Bill


                                        On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Dustin Evermore <devermore@...> wrote:
                                         


                                        On Mar 9, 2013, at 5:39 PM, John Rudd <johnkzin@...> wrote:

                                        On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Dustin Evermore <devermore@...> wrote:
                                         


                                        On Mar 9, 2013, at 5:00 PM, Brad Murray <bjmurray.halfjack@...> wrote:

                                        On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Dustin Evermore <devermore@...> wrote:
                                        However, if a player offers a concession for his character when battling a man-eating shark, as a GM you should feel no obligation to accept that, warning or no. Sharks are interested in eating, not letting prey get away. They'll go for a Taken Out every time. 
                                         
                                        Remember that you are negotiating with the ref, not the shark. You're negotiating a story result, not a change in the shark's motivation or behaviour.

                                        Yes. So? I'm not sure what you are arguing here.


                                        So, the decision about whether or not to accept the concession should be based on:

                                        (a) Does the GM think this is a good story outcome?

                                        and NOT based upon:

                                        (b) Does the Shark want to negotiate a lesser outcome than feeding its hunger? 



                                        Your statement about sharks just being hungry killing machines answers (b).  It has nothing to do with (a).


                                        I think this is getting unnecessarily nit-picky here. The GM is running the sharks as he does all NPCs. Of course it's the GM making the decisions and is with whom you negotiate. Making sure a good story is told is always the GM's first responsibility. Do we really need to continually restate it in order to understand one another?









                                        --
                                        Brad Murray (halfjack)
                                        VSCA Publishing
                                      • Brett Ritter
                                        ... OMG, just realized we ve been missing the opportunity to Summon Bigger Fish . ( http://www.darthsanddroids.net ) or, for something less pulpy than a
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Mar 11, 2013
                                          On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Lisa Steele <steelelaw@...> wrote:
                                          > Think more broadly. You're in open ocean -- you're about to be eaten by the sharks -- you want to offer a concession. GM says raises an eyebrow. You say -- ok, I pass out just as a submarine rises under me...GM, you pick who's capturing me and why. Admittedly, I'm a SotC GM, but I'd take that concession.

                                          OMG, just realized we've been missing the opportunity to "Summon
                                          Bigger Fish". ( http://www.darthsanddroids.net )

                                          or, for something less pulpy than a submarine: "The shark attacks me
                                          viciously, but as I pass out I hear the squeaks of a helpful pod of
                                          dolphins..."

                                          --
                                          Brett Ritter / SwiftOne
                                          swiftone@...
                                        • Bill Burdick
                                          Totally! If the player is OK with it, that s great! And of course, you don t have to accept their first concession and you don t have to accept any
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Mar 11, 2013
                                            Totally!  If the player is OK with it, that's great!  And of course, you don't have to accept their first concession and you don't have to accept any concessions at all; you can just go ahead and Take Out their character, but that doesn't have to mean that the player sits on their hands for the rest of the session (or story).

                                            Here's the thing: having your character Taken Out should actually be FUN for a player.  Take the scene in Casino Royale with Daniel Craig, where they have him torture him, sitting naked in the seatless chair.  That's James Bond being taken out.  Check out how Craig plays it -- "I have an itch, you know, down there..."

                                            Being Taken Out can be a great opportunity for some really good screen time to play up your character's aspects.  But if you make it so a player can't play and require them to do a whole lot of work in order to get back in (like making a new character, for instance), you do risk making the game suck for them.


                                            On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Brad Murray <bjmurray.halfjack@...> wrote:
                                             

                                            Another possibility to consider is the offer of a concession by a player that in fact kills the character -- perhaps a secondary objective is not being meet (saving a child, maybe) but you are still kicking the opposition's ass. Just not fast enough. A valid concession (at my table) for a player might be "I die but we save the kid". It's not entirely clear who is conceding -- the villain gives up the kid but the character dies. The players win, but the villain escapes, maybe "winning" on her terms. But it still seems like an awesome moment you would not want the rules to forbid.


                                            On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Bill Burdick <bill.burdick@...> wrote:
                                             

                                            I think the key point is this question: Will this make the game suck for the player who's about to lose their PC?

                                            If a player asks to concede, that probably means the game would suck for them if their PC dies.

                                            If the player's OK with their PC's death, then that's fine, but they probably won't offer a concession in that case.  Making the game suck for someone (for any reason) is not OK in FATE Core: "Both players and gamemasters also have a secondary job: make everyone around you look awesome" -- page 8 of the draft.  And it would indeed be the GM who is making the game suck, because seeing no other possible option than death is just thinking inside the box which the GM has created.

                                            Unbelievable coincidences, unknown allies, supernatural events, and the like are the meat and potatoes of fantastic adventures (and Fantastic Adventures puts the "FA" in FATE).


                                            Bill


                                            On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Dustin Evermore <devermore@...> wrote:
                                             


                                            On Mar 9, 2013, at 5:39 PM, John Rudd <johnkzin@...> wrote:

                                            On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Dustin Evermore <devermore@...> wrote:
                                             


                                            On Mar 9, 2013, at 5:00 PM, Brad Murray <bjmurray.halfjack@...> wrote:

                                            On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Dustin Evermore <devermore@...> wrote:
                                            However, if a player offers a concession for his character when battling a man-eating shark, as a GM you should feel no obligation to accept that, warning or no. Sharks are interested in eating, not letting prey get away. They'll go for a Taken Out every time. 
                                             
                                            Remember that you are negotiating with the ref, not the shark. You're negotiating a story result, not a change in the shark's motivation or behaviour.

                                            Yes. So? I'm not sure what you are arguing here.


                                            So, the decision about whether or not to accept the concession should be based on:

                                            (a) Does the GM think this is a good story outcome?

                                            and NOT based upon:

                                            (b) Does the Shark want to negotiate a lesser outcome than feeding its hunger? 



                                            Your statement about sharks just being hungry killing machines answers (b).  It has nothing to do with (a).


                                            I think this is getting unnecessarily nit-picky here. The GM is running the sharks as he does all NPCs. Of course it's the GM making the decisions and is with whom you negotiate. Making sure a good story is told is always the GM's first responsibility. Do we really need to continually restate it in order to understand one another?









                                            --
                                            Brad Murray (halfjack)
                                            VSCA Publishing


                                          • Lisa Steele
                                            After I wrote it I recalled the scene from Princess Bride where Buttercup is fished out of the water before the Screaming Eels can eat her. The Concession is
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Mar 11, 2013
                                              After I wrote it I recalled the scene from Princess Bride where Buttercup is fished out of the water before the Screaming Eels can eat her. The Concession is -- I don't escape from my kidnappers. But I don't get eaten either.


                                              -----Original Message-----
                                              >From: WebMD
                                              >Sent: Mar 11, 2013 3:17 PM
                                              >To: FateRPG@yahoogroups.com
                                              >Subject: Re: [FateRPG] Concession in lethal combats
                                              >
                                              >On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Lisa Steele <steelelaw@...> wrote:
                                              >> Think more broadly. You're in open ocean -- you're about to be eaten by the sharks -- you want to offer a concession. GM says raises an eyebrow. You say -- ok, I pass out just as a submarine rises under me...GM, you pick who's capturing me and why. Admittedly, I'm a SotC GM, but I'd take that concession.
                                              >
                                              >OMG, just realized we've been missing the opportunity to "Summon
                                              >Bigger Fish". ( http://www.darthsanddroids.net )
                                              >
                                              >or, for something less pulpy than a submarine: "The shark attacks me
                                              >viciously, but as I pass out I hear the squeaks of a helpful pod of
                                              >dolphins..."
                                              >
                                              >--
                                              >Brett Ritter / SwiftOne
                                              >swiftone@...
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >------------------------------------
                                              >
                                              >| Fate * http://www.faterpg.com/
                                              >| DFRPG * http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/
                                              >| Evil Hat * http://www.evilhat.com/
                                              >| Evil Hat Fan Wiki * http://evilhat.wikidot.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                            • Jonathan Lang
                                              Personally, I d be less concerned with what happens when a player offers a concession to the GM (as has been made abundantly clear, the GM arguably isn t doing
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Mar 11, 2013
                                                Personally, I'd be less concerned with what happens when a player offers a concession to the GM (as has been made abundantly clear, the GM arguably isn't doing his job properly if he puts the shark's interests ahead of the story's interests) than with what happens when the GM (or anyther player) offers a concession to a player.
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.