Quick rules question.
In another post, there was some disagreement in terms of what happens when you're Taken Out - specifically, the scope of what the victor can narrate.
One view is that the victor can narrate and dictate how the loser is Taken Out, but does not have narrative control beyond that.
The other view is that the victor has a great deal of narrative control, and essentially can do just about anything with that character. Since you could kill the character, anything else is lesser and still falls within those guidelines.
As an example: Let's say a PC is trying to rescue a third party from some bad guy, and in the process Takes Out the bad guy. Clearly the PC can narrate that the bad guy is knocked out and captured. Can they also narrate that the bad guy gives them all of the information he knows?
In the first view, they couldn't. They'd have captured the bad guy, but that would be the extent of their ability to dictate "what happens". To get the information out of them would require some kind of Overcome or possibly even a Contest.
In the second view, they could. They get to determine what happens to the Taken Out character, and as such they can simply narrate the scene, and declare that he gives up the info.
Is there an official position on this, and/or what's the overall community consensus?
20130829 Quick rules question’In another post...
Shared to the community Fate Core - Public
+1'd by: Tim Noyce, Porter Williams
As part of a Concession, can the would-be-Conceder offer up information that they have? Or would this already be presumed to be available as part of what the victor would gain if they were to refuse the Concession and instead Take Out the opponent?
I guess the question is, what are the limits of "what loss looks like" and "what happens after the conflict"?
To address the example, if the purpose of the conflict is to rescue a hostage and the bad guy is Taken Out or Concedes, either way the hostage is rescued. In the case of a Concession, the bad guy might lose the hostage but still escape. If the characters accept that concession, he got off easy, but they might insist that he turn himself in instead. In a more action-y game, him just giving up the information might be appropriate. However, if the table wants to run an interrogation scene next, the bad guy surrendering would be a great way to lead into that.
However, if he is Taken Out, he loses the hostage and also is captured and taken in for questioning (or spilling his guts if they don't want to do an interrogation scene). I see Taken Out as sort of another form of SWS. Taking Out your opposition means you get what you want out of the Conflict, as you would with a Concession, but with an added bonus.
Edit: In either case, him giving up the information was not the reason for the conflict. They were trying to save the hostage. There's a good case for the interrogation to be a separate scene, but that seems like a decision better made at the table.
In other words, you should be certain you get your express goal if you win; that's the definition of winning. But if you take actions that make your goal explicitly impossible, then item (2) will trump item (1). You can't take the bad guy prisoner by nuking the town he's in. You can't steal the plans the enemy is clutching to his chest by spraying him with napalm.
But like (2) serves as a limit on (1), (1) also serves as a limit on (2). If you went into the fight trying to find out what the bad guy knows, then actually taking him prisoner would be a bonus. The narrative might give it to you, but it wasn't inherently part of the objectives of the conflict, so you aren't being "ripped off" if you take him prisoner, get the information, then find out he escaped the moment he was out of your sight.
The question is specifically about whether, when an opponent is Taken Out, you get to narrate things beyond how he's Taken Out, and even more specifically whether that narrative control gives you the ability to get other things of value (information, goods, cooperation) out of the Taken Out character.
In the example given, let's assume the following things are true:
1) The purpose of the Conflict is to see if the girl is captured or not.
2) Nothing is done during the Conflict that would prevent the losers giving out information regarding their boss' plans.
3) The enemies have information on their boss' plan, but that was not the 'purpose' of the Conflict - we can go one step further and say that the PCs didn't have any clear indication that they would, apart from being in their boss' employ.
Now, obviously if it works at the table, it works, and the GM is free to give up whatever info he wants. But in this case, would the victors have an inherent "right" by virtue of Taking Out their opponents to get the information?
Another, related question (really, the same question from a different viewpoint):
Given the same assumptions as before, let's say that the bad guys try to Concede, but the PCs don't want to accept the Concession. Would it make sense for the bad guys to offer up info on their boss' plans as part of the Concession, to make the choice more attractive? Or is this something that the PCs would inherently get as part of Taking Out the bad guys?
But it'd make a nifty bribe to sweeten a "I'll give you this and you'll let me get away" concession. And it's often good to have one or more such things pre-planned, just to keep the idea of concessions alive and current in the game.
The bad guys offering up the info is a great Concession option, though. Almost a "We'll save you the trouble of having to beat the information out of any of us if you let us go/don't kill us/whatever."
Blabbing everything he knows to stay alive definitely seems like a Concession to me.
The best thing, I think, is to split this up and make 2 scenes from this: a physical to catch the guy, where the taken out result is simply the fact that he is caught, and a social conflict, where you get the information out of him. That's probably aided by the fact that he lost the first conflict.
Generally, even a taken out result has to be in character. There was a great example in the DFRPG rules, where they talk about a high powered mobster, and when you take him out socially, he's not going to run out crying. Instead, he scoffs at you, folds his napkin and walks out without another word.
The same goes here, I think. If you've got a die hard follower of the bad guy, he's going to fight to death, or at least till you knock him out, and then you are going to make him tell you things. A lesser minion might simply surrender as a taken out result and start blubbering about what he knows, though that might not be too much anyway.
Additionally, offering up information as part of a Concession is totally valid, as the victor wouldn't have automatic access to that anyway.
I can't browbeat someone to literal death.
The methods used to achieve the result limit the scope of an otherwise very potent amount of narrative control over the target.
You never met my ex.
Shooting someone until they are Taken Out means that they are no longer a factor in the Shootout scene. The narrative is going to resolve why that is.
Browbeating someone until they are T.O. means they are no longer a factor in the Browbeating scene. The narrative is going to resolve why that is.
If the Shootout is resolved, and then Browbeating begins, or vice versa that is basically a new scene to me, and the character who was Taken Out prior gets to participate in this new scene since their Stress is replenished. They still have the Consequences from the prior conflict though, thus will be easier to Take Out again.
That's my take.
In this particular case, I'd agree with the consensus. You cannot shoot someone into blabbing information. However, I think we're getting distracted by the particular details and have lost the real thrust of the question
The real question (at least for me) is:
1) How much narrative authority does the winner have when someone is taken out. What are the limits of that authority.
2) Can you offer things in a concession that couldn't already be part of being taken out? Or are the results of what could be offered during a concession by definition a subset of what could be narrated as part of taking someone out?
I think that's fairly worded, and gets to the crux of our previous discussion. Now I'm going to jump in with my opinion.
First, I don't like setting the stakes for a conflict at the beginning of the conflict. In my opinion, that may be a nice place to start, but the conflict will naturally evolve and change.
Instead, I like to focus on the current narrative. Therefore the narrative control gained by taking someone out is not limited by the initial stakes, but limited by the current situation at the time the person is taken out.
So, in the gun battle, if one of the PCs described how he was sneaking up behind the NPC, then he made an attack that took the NPC out, I would say that narrating something like, "I place my gun against the back of his head, and tell him to start talking or I'll blow his brains out."
This seems like it should be pretty uncontroversial so far. The NPC is out of the fight, and is at the PCs mercy. He can basically kill him without another roll. He can also freely interrogate him.
Now, can the PC force the NPC to talk as part of being taken out? Maybe, maybe not. For me, it depends a lot on the nature of the information at stake, the personality of the NPC and just my gut instincts. I might let him start blabbing. I might require that we switch to a mental conflict, as the PCs start interrogating him. In either case, the physical conflict is over. It cannot start up again (at least, not until something happens to drastically change the scene).
But the answer to that question really isn't important. The important question is, if the PCs cannot narrate that the NPC started talking, could the GM offer to have the NPC start talking as part of a concession (before the roll that took him out, of course)?
I say no.
Here's my thinking.
1) Remember, we're not talking about the NPC negotiating with the PCs. The concessions are a meta-game tool. It's the players and the GMs that are negotiating. I think allowing concessions like this muddles what's going on. It starts to feel like the characters are stopping in the middle of the fight and saying, "Hey, I'll give up and tell you everything if you stop shooting." That's not what we're really talking about here.
If the NPCs want to surrender, or want to offer up information, that's fine. They can do that as their action--and the PCs can respond to it however they wish. That's character-to-character negotiation. But, it shouldn't be part of a concession.
2) Concessions also have to make sense given the current narrative. If it doesn't make sense as the outcome of the stated action for being taken out, it still doesn't make sense as a concession. You can either force someone to start talking by shooting at them, or you cannot.
They can offer to tell you want you want to get you to stop shooting.
I'm not quite sure where your point #1 comes from, except maybe personal preference? The value of concession happening on a meta-level is that it:
a) allows for things not 'in-character' as part of the concession (but that doesn't restrict it to those things)
b) provides a higher degree of belief that it will actually happen, since characters can lie but players shouldn't. "The bad guys will give up info on their boss if you let them go" has different context than "hey, stop shooting and come here, and we'll tell you what we know. Honest."
Concessions, to my mind, are a very specific mechanic. They are used to control how a character is taken out. They are used to limit the amount of narrative control the attacker gets over his victory. Not all fights need to end in with someone conceding or being taken out.
The good thing is, the discussion has clarified how I think about these things--whether they are "official" or not. The more I think of it, the more I believe that I should only use concessions as a direct response to an attack action. And, the outcome needs to make sense given the action.
Say Grokk the Barbarian launches himself at Timmy the Mage. Grokk's player describes his action, "I come at you in a flying leap, swinging my ax in a massive, two-handed overhead blow." He then reaches for his dice.
Player 2 looks at his sheet and says, "Um, I think I'll concede. Let's say I surrender and tell you everything I know about Minister Doug's secret plans?"
This doesn't work for me. Why? It's not consistent with the action. Timmy simply does not have time to make an offer. Grokk is in the middle of a blow. The narrated outcome needs to at least acknowledge that somehow.
If Grokk's actions were narrated more vaguely. e.g. "I shoulder my ax and attack." Then I'd be more willing to allow it. But, if I did allow it, I'd probably also allow it as the effect of being taken out. If it's consistent enough with the current action in one case, it's consistent in both.
In a socially negotiated storytelling situation timing has to be less rigid than that, IMO. "Before he starts to swing," interjects the target, "I'd like to concede." The clock rolls back just a little. The dice haven't rolled yet, so the point of interjection must still be in play.
However, in a similar vein, I have no problem with the attacker rolling really well and taking out the opponent, then saying "My ax swings a hairs breath away from his nose and crashes into the ground with a crack like thunder. The stone a our feet shatters. Tim's eyes go wide, as he begins begging for his life."
I guess you could say we are retconning a physical attack into an intimidation attack. But, I have no problem with that. Having Timmy a quivering lump of fear is more interesting than just splitting his skull open.
What I am struggling with is the idea that the attacker could get more out of a concession than he would get from just taking the opponent out. It seems to me, the nature of a concession is a compromise. You should always get less of what you want, not more.
Conceding is about sparing a character from becoming relatively helpless. Some Concessions can be giving the opponent exactly what they wanted (or more), because it has been decided that the fight is no longer worth it.
My experience is that in real fights, once one side is clearly winning they absolutely demand more than they initially did to stop the attack, because they know they can.
It's about whether you can get more from a concession than you can get by taking someone out.
In my mind, taking someone out should be the ultimate victory. It should set the maximum for what the winner can achieve.
Taking a concession means compromising for something less than that maximum. Saying I'm willing to end the fight now, under more restricted terms.
Ultimately, that's what my and +Robert Hanz's previous discussion boiled down to.
But, honestly, it's a really minor corner case. I think Robert and I may be arguing over semantics, without any real difference in play.
I get the impression that if the fight was going bad, he'd have the NPCs offer a concession, saying they're willing to surrender and tell their master's secrets.
I'd argue that it doesn't work as a concession--that doest flow from the narrative properly for my tastes. However, I'd just have them surrender as their action. The end result would be the same.
Once someone knows they are going to lose a conflict, and that it will negatively impact their future goals their desire to stop the conflict can be leveraged against them to great affect. It is just a matter of looking at what they are valuing.
Taking a Concession means compromising for something less than what you fear.
I say let's play Uncle, and you agree stating, "I have never ever said Uncle, and I never will."
We start, and it becomes clear that you miscalculated how much pain you could be in. You say, "This is a stupid game. Let's stop."
I say, "I know you don't want to say Uncle, so instead say that you like to eat dog puke."
You agree, even though that is clearly a worse thing to admit, because you at least still have your claim that, "I never say Uncle, and I never will."
Once a person offers Concession they are renegotiating the terms, and anything is possible in negotiation including a seemingly worse deal that actually addresses concerns observers may not be privy to.
But, I'm not really talking about trying to get the minimum for a concession.
What we were originally discussing was whether you could offer something in a concession that the winner would otherwise not be able to get by just waiting and taking the person out.
The main example is the following. Assume I shoot at someone. Let's also assume that we all agree, if I roll well and take them out, I cannot narrate that they surrender and tell me all their secrets.
Now, instead of letting me take the roll, they decide to offer a concession. Can they offer to surrender and tell me all of their secrets?
I have real problems with this. I feel that concessions also need to flow naturally from the narrative--just like the taken out resolutions. If it's not a natural outcome of my action, I can't use it when I take some one out. Therefore, they also cannot use it as a concession.
And, I have real trouble wrapping my brain around how this example would work narratively. It just doesn't feel right to me.
If they want to surrender. Sure. Let them use their action to do it. They can dive behind cover and shout out, "Stop shooting...stop shooting. We'll tell you everything you want to know." That's fine.
But doing it as, essentially, a reaction to someone else's action--I just can't make it flow in my mind the way a movie would. It knocks me out of the story, and makes me aware of the mechanics in a way I'm just not comfortable with.
Maybe it's just me. But, I really want to maintain the illusion of the story. Concessions, when handled with a heavy hand, can really break that flow for me.