Maybe that last part is a separate question- to what extent can being taken out dictate your actions past the point of being taken out? In your example, I'd think that you could dictate that the person attacks- but not the method, nor the intensity, especially if it's the result of a social conflict.

@edgerunner I'm not sure I really understand what you're describing in the comments. Would it be possible to expand that out into an example scenario?

Well it has to make sense in the context of the whole story somehow, otherwise there would be chaos.

@BESW Here goes: Assume that our wizard is trying to confront two goons in a warehouse in a cat-and-mouse game, in order to rescue a helpless child. The wizard is trying to attack the goons in order to take them out by somehow putting their lights out. What the goons are doing is somewhat more interesting: They are trying to drive our wizard over the edge by getting to his nerves. They are supposedly hired to keep the wizard occupied while the master villain is doing his thing elsewhere.

They attack the wizard's mental stress track by taunting, evading and threatening him, and especially by threatening to hurt the child, and making her scream a lot. Assume that the goons are successful in taking out the wizard before the he can do the same for them.

Here it fits the story. The wizard is already trying to hurt the goons, though he's not intent on killing them, he sure can do that accidentally.

And when he's taken out, the wizard's player loses his control of the wizard's story momentarily

The opposing player, GM in this case, now gets to tell how the wizard meets his demise. The fact that he's taken out on the mental stress track makes it possible that he does something bad while out of his mind.

The GM tells that the wizard, in a fit of frustration and rage, augmented by a screaming child, flash freezes one of the goons and kicks him out of the way to grab the child and get out, while the other goon is staring, shocked at the sight of his friend shattering into a million tiny shards of ice.

The wizard was taken out but he actually got what he came for, albeit at a great cost. He is now a lawbreaker.

The moral of the story is, don't get taken out. It involves death and fates worse than death.

@wraith808 It's hard to put precise limits on what you can or cannot dictate on a taken out result. You can only define guidelines. "It has to fit in with the whole story and the current context" is a good guideline. There will always be people trying to stretch and abuse that, but you can always gang up on abusers and beat them to a pulp in a dark alley after the game. :P

Hm. I like that example, but I think a GM would be very irresponsible by the rules and guidelines of the manual as well as just generally as a GM, if he did it without being sure the player and the group were okay with it first.

And by the rules the group would be totally in their rights to throw it out.

@BESW The group, by definition of the social contract, has the right to doing anything, even overriding rules or past decisions. The idea here is that once you are taken out, you give a lot of power over your character to the opposing player. IMO the group should only intervene in inconsistent, stupid or outlandish abuses of that power. Anything that is somehow plausible should be allowed even if it is extremely harsh.

@edgerunner I'm not talking about the social contract (about which I totally agree), I'm talking about the actual DFRPG discussion of including the Laws, and especially the First Law, in the game.

You mean the discussion in YS that being a lawbreaker is something you should explicitly take up?

That, alongside the explicit rules that concession belongs to the group...

But there's no concession in my example. I agree with that, concession definitely has to be approved by everyone

I'm not talking about concessions at all

Okay, duly noted. Sorry, got another conversation pop up too.

But... the idea that a GM can impose something like that on a PC without consulting the group seems anathema to the narrative collaboration that I see at the core of FATE.

That's why I wanted to take it outside the comment thread, it was off-topic for that question

IMO the player can also impose a similar thing on a GM character

That's the idea of getting taken out

Questions I'd have to ask myself as a GM include, "Is becoming a Lawbreaker interesting?" and "Does it advance the story?"

Definitely

@edgerunner A GM character sort of exists to have that happen to them.

Otherwise it's just being a dick of a GM :D

The scenario you're proposing could easily turn a PC into an NPC without the player's consent.

And I love the scenario, don't get me wrong: with the right group it could be really compelling in a non-Fate-point definition of the word.

But as I'm new to FATE and still trying to understand the system, the idea that it could happen by GM fiat makes me balk.

Hmm, that PC >NPC thing is an angle I haven't considered

But in FATE games, I see little difference between the GM and other players

Same.

Except that the GM is a bit richer in terms of fate points :)

But I see a big difference between NPCs and PCs.

In terms of contribution and collaboration, the GM and the players are on a nearly even footing.

But the NPCs are not the thread holding the story together. They haven't had the time and effort put into their creation and the development of their stories. Many of them don't even have stunts or an aspect beyond their high concept (which is often also their 'name').

I guess It's my leftover attitude from the Cyberpunk 2020 days, that I see PC's as regular punks who have no special place in the world and can be killed by any other lowlife out there :D

That makes the game harsh but it also causes the players to be more careful with their characters after losing a few

@edgerunner Yeah, death in FATE is explicitly something that only happens by choice, never by chance.

That's right, but when you get your character taken out, you hand that choice over to your opponent :D

Aye.

So he decides

I'm pointing it out because most other RPG systems have some method by which your character can be taken out purely by accident.

Right, not in FATE though

Someone pulls a gun on a Dog in DitV, any number of methods in D&D....

So even when you're handing your ability to choose over to an opponent, it's still... one moment, I shall find the quote.

> Many roleplaying games have a fairly casual attitude towards characters using their special abilities to kill others—but that should not usually be the case in this game.

YS236

And with regard to ALL the Laws, YS 234:

> Who determines that a character has crossed the line? This is something that a gaming group should decide on as a policy for their specific game.

By my reading, those together mean that the scenario you gave should never and is not allowed to happen as purely the choice of the GM, because the Laws are a Big Deal and the First Law is the Biggest Deal.

That looks more like a setting specific decision to me

Like "what kind of a killing constitutes a breach of the law"

or "who judges a suspect, warden or white council or whatever"

I'm totally okay with it being read that way.

But I'm going to also read intent and game philosophy into it.

I realize that's the intentional fallacy, but I think it's reasonable in this situation.

Do you think my example scenario would hold up to your interpretation of rules if there was no first law?

Or if the wizard was a mortal instead and he shot the goon instead of freezing him…

Hmmm.

Let me think about that.

I want to give an actual answer and not a knee-jerk response, because it's so anathema to my GM style that I have to step back a moment.

ok :)

...Okay. I think that it would be less troublesome if the game didn't have a mandatory mechanic which had the potential for removing the PC from the player's control permanently.

It is definitely harsh

But consider another scenario where the taken-out character is just killed on the spot

That's just as harsh

maybe even harsher

Right.

and it takes the character away as well

Okay, let me look up another quote.

First:

I think if the rules allow the demise of a character by dying against the player's will, there's no reason that the character can't meet his demise by becoming a lawbreaker as well

> While the player of the attacker that takes out an opponent gets to decide the manner in which his victim loses, this does not mean that the attacker has the authority to dictate specifics that are completely out of character for the loser. The loser still controls his own character in an essential way and is allowed to modify whatever the winner states to make sure that whatever happens stays true to form.

Second... this is massive, let me try to trim it down.

so the winner declares that the losing character dies, but the original player describes specifics

same could hold here. winner says wizard kills goon, player states specifics

> By a strict reading of the rules, a physical conflict that’s severe enough and takes you out could result in your opponent going, “And you die from your wounds.” This is something you’re going to want to talk about as a group out-of-game, to see where everyone is on the subject.

> If your group does permit calling for character death in certain physical conflicts, expect players to use concessions a lot to avoid that final fate.

> As a rule of thumb, when death is on the line, announce it in advance, preferably at the start of the conflict. That way everyone has plenty of time to see utter defeat coming and can keep an itchy finger on the concession trigger.

First block quote is from YS 203, last three are YS 206.

So.... DFRPG does not, actually, technically, assume the possibility of character death as part of being taken out is a given.

So prior warning is the way to go you say

And if it is decided to be included, it should be warned about ahead of time when it comes up. I'd say the same thing should apply to Lawbreaking scenarios like yours.

"Hey guys, let's talk about dying and being forced to break the Laws as part of Being Taken Out."

So a prior warning that the goons hidden agenda is to drive the character over the edge and have him do something terrible would be appropriate?

So... sure, I'm totally okay with the scenario you described, as described, with the assumption that the GM is also adhering to the guidelines I just quoted.

Open communication of intent it is :)

@edgerunner Yes. This means the wizard's player can choose to go balls-to-the-wall to avoid it, instead of being blindsided by expecting the consequence to be "lose the kid," and instead it's "become hunted by bloodthirsty wizard warriors until the end of your days."

Thanks! This actually helps me a lot in thinking about how I'm going to be running my DFRPG campaign next month.

And it helps me with the FATE based game I'm developing

:)

The only other systems I've had much experience with are D&D editions, so... big shifts in thoughts.

The open communication is something that I fell in love with from my first contact with FATE.

Yes that's a big leap :)

I've never run D&D games quite... to the letter of the game's GM philosophies.

Now I'm thinking that I should write down "open communication" as a very explicit and emphasized rule in my new game

And now I'm finding systems that actually cater to the kind of game I've always mangled D&D to conform to.

D&D always felt quite frustrating to me

Beautiful setting but rules shoehorn you into very specific patterns

Yeah, and I'm okay with that.... except that the game pretends it doesn't.

:D

I mean, I find MLWM to be sheer elegance in the way its every rule dictates and nudges and boots the play into a specific experience.

But that's the express purpose of that game and it takes pride in that.

MLWM?

D&D... kind of tries to pretend it can be used for any gaming style, but so obviously (to a trained eye, but mine wasn't at all until recently) can't.

My Life With Master.

Yes I read that briefly, interesting game :)

My players hated it. Well, one player hated it and the others just found it frustrating.

But that's very clearly because they didn't want the experience the game was trying to offer, and only played it as a favor to me.

(lesson learned)

Hmm, such "limited scope" games do that to people who aren't explicitly very fond of the genre

I used to run Cyberpunk 2020 games for a bunch of friends back in the 90's

I never got one of them to like the game, even though the others were crazy about it

It's fascinating to me, because I learned exclusively in D&D 3.5 and had no exposure to any other RPG system (except a brief and tragic Mage game that broke the day after I joined it) for five years.

So I went through the experience of thinking D&D was the be-all end-all despite constantly lashing out at its constraints, because I didn't know the alternatives even existed.

Mage is a good one, that same friend that didn't like CP2020 ran a session of Mage for us

@edgerunner Yeah, that game just had a really really bad storyteller. Well. He was a great storyteller. He was an awful Storyteller. Told great stories, but the players were just along for the ride and had no agency.

No fun in that

Mmm.

That makes you want to break his story :D

Which he did not allow. By fiat.

He joined my D&D campaign and after some acclimatization (very different intraparty philosophies between the systems) was much happier as a player.

Looks like it was a good story, not a game.

Yeah, and his players either accepted lack of agency as the price of admission for a good story, or left very angrily.

So I'm really excited when I see games that are open about their intent, and whose rules are elegant in working to fulfill that intent.

And I'm personally attracted to games that encourage strong player engagement and agency in and out of the game world.

DFRPG is going to be the first non-D&D game I've run more than two sessions of, ever.

And I'm going to have... 1.5 players for it.

1.5 players? who's the 0.5?

A guy who can show up about every other week.

Whoops, sorry, wrong chat.

Too many windows open.

that happens :) NP

@edgerunner True in theory- I can get that. But it just seems wrong for taken out to extend to that depth of control of another's actions, i.e. you kill me. But to give another slant on what you said, what if two people were having an argument on the roof. One takes the other out mentally- you're so depressed that you jump off the roof.

But does it fit the context?

Actually, that leads me to the reason that it feels wrong- you're using taken out in one sphere to affect the other. I just don't think that taken out in one area (Physical/Mental/Social) should affect another.

@wraith808 Yeah, we actually reached a really good point and conclusion by comparing Lawbreaking to death, and finding very mature and explicit rules and guidelines on death as a consequence of being taken out.

If the conflict at hand is about a suicide scene, why not

Not if the person wasn't actually suicidal to begin with.

If it is... but lets go back to your example about taking someone out mentally and forcing them to kill you.

If the person was not already a killer- had no killer instincts, and there was not already a combat in motion- would that be in context?

The idea is that the goon does not force the wizard

If you were in combat with someone, and that person was goading you while you were flinging around overpowered fireballs and you took them out socially- then maybe I could see it.

So who does affect the wizard? That's what I thought we were discussing... someone making the wizard kill them when being taken out socially.

It is the "opposing player" that takes over the wizard's story for a moment

With the following caveats:

The goon probably doesn't intend to die

a) the wizard's player may veto anything that is absolutely out of character for the wizard

b) the party has decided at the beginning of the campaign how lethal taking-out can be

c) if lethality of some sort is agreed on, the GM is bound to say at the start of a conflict if that level of lethality is on the table for that conflict.

(YS 203, 206)

In this context, the opponent- no matter if it's a player or a goon takes over the story.

I agree on b and c, it is part of the social contract and open communication

on a, I actually made a house rule to resolve that kind of thing.

@edgerunner Agreed. (a) is something that has to be discussed. You don't just get veto power. But, if it's out of character, the group should agree if he's been playing correctly.

YS 203

@TowerJoo hi!

Right... but out of character is the operative term. If the player says his character is a pacifist, but hasn't been playing him as such, then it is no longer out of character for the character.

My house rule is: The "taken-out" story an opposing player is subject to compels from anyone at the table. It is particularly hard to tell that story against the grain of character aspects.

And modify, doesn't mean the same as veto from that same part.

@edgerunner That's interesting, but a taken-out character is likely to not have any Fate points to spend on compels.

So if you try to veto it, you should back it up with aspects

And that means you probably have to get some support from others at the table

It's the narrative, not the substance that you change.

@edgerunner Very nice. Getting support from others at the table to tell the story is always good in Fate, IMO

Have to go to work... but I'll be back once I get there. Interesting conversation. :)

Oh, it is always perfectly ok to discuss and agree on something without involving the rules at all

Ultimately, this entire conversation is (I hope) based around fringe cases; the vast majority of groups will understand these limits and guidelines automagically and will never bump into the walls we're running up against.

But as a GM (me) and a designer (you) they're definitely walls we need to be aware of.

This is a good edge case because it involves modifying the character in a way that normally only the owner of the character could do

"Lawbreaker" being a power and so..

I suspect that one issue is that DFRPG, like many non-BNG systems, is not actually concerned with laying down laws.

Yeah, everthing in the book is somewhat loose

So the source material we have to work from is less Rules As Written as it is "More Like Guidelines, Really."

We have to work from statements of intent and suggestions for play rather than Laws Laid Down.

And the one suggestion that comes up over and over and over, and is often phrased as a rule, is "go to the group."

It's quite explicit that the only power the GM has in ruling decisions is that which the group gives him, and that even when he is given that power he's expected to act as a conduit for the group's will.

FATE GMs canalize the gestalt will of the group.

There, I've got my Pretentious Statement of the Day out, with less than half an hour left in the day.

(When I say "the group," the GM is explicitly part of that body. There is no GM vs Players in FATE.)

@BESW It would rather be boring if everything was precisely laid down anyway :) I can't say I complain about that :D

Agreed!

But for a GM used to D&D's attempts to codify and regiment everything, or at least pretend to? It can get maddening trying to adapt.

You may have noticed some of my flailing "HAO I FATE?" questions popping up lately.

I love the idea that my players can make their own stunts and powers. It excites me on a visceral level that makes me feel slightly unclean.

:D When you start running FATE games, you have to learn to let go of your control over the game

@edgerunner I look forward to it, if I can achieve it.

My favorite sessions are the ones where I throw out my notes and go along for the ride as my players explore bits I don't know about until we get there either.

Just assume you're a player, a regular one

Don't start telling the story, let someone else start

This last campaign has been a massive chore, because due to its nature it's the most railroady I've ever been. I want to throw the campaign to my players and say, "I'm tired."

Do not prepare a plot, let one of the others do something and have the world react to that

I'm developing a plot to start with, but it's... more of a loose set of NPCs with individual goals, and a single event that gets the PCs' attention.

The more you invest, the more you'll get stuck

Yar.

I have no.... expectation of how it'll turn out, just a starting point.

Did you run the city creation yet?

that's where most of the story forms

Not yet. I'm doing my best not to do any actual prep work until we've done that, but I can't help having loose ideas.

I have another house rule for running that part of the game

It is a "game" in itself, without characters in the beginning

but players are there as players

I.... honestly don't know if I or my players can approach city creation the ideal way at first. We're so solidly entrenched in D&D habits.

give everyone a limited number of fate points, 4-5 is good

I understand it, I'm just not sure we can dive into it that deeply right away.

no GM at this point, everybody is equal

don't skip on city creation, that's the driving force in DF and other fate games

Oh, definitely.

I'm absolutely planning to do city creation.

But I'm going to ask them to include a particular kind of area and tie their PCs to it somehow, so I can start a hook based on the one PC concept I know is being planned.

(Since there's only going to be one regular player.... yeah.)

then, while you're creating the city and related stuff, when somebody proposes something and everybody is somehow ok with it, just write it down

but if some discussion can't resolve a particular detail, resort to the dice to decide on it

the mechanics I use are simple

when a player proposes something and the table can't agree on it, everyone except the proposing player votes for or against it

every for vote is +1 and every against vote is -1

the proposing player rolls the dice and adds the vote total. If the result is 0 or higher, the proposal is accepted. It is rejected if less

but it doesn't end with that

if you don't like the outcome, you may spend fate points to invoke aspects and boost or hinder the roll as usual

Cute.

Probably not gonna be necessary in my group, but worth remembering.

Turns long discussions into quick decisions

It's gonna be me, one regular player, and a guy who will roll with anything the regular participants want.

Easy then

not much discussion

I have no idea what 'city' they're going to want.

It's actually driving me batty; I'm used to doing extensive pre-campaign prep and I'm left with... basically one NPC I'm confident designing for practice.

I'm doing my best to quash anything but the most generic thoughts about how the game will go.

Consider yourself a player. Helps a lot

You're going to play another GM's game

It helps that the main player I'll be working with has awesome ideas.

He's very character-driven, and not too comfortable putting himself forward as a GM, so I think FATE will be ideal for us.

Another perspective that helps that is: You're not ta GM, you're a referee

In addition to being a regular player, you decide on the relevancy of certain rules

I'm also gonna be the guy who knows the rules the best.

but everyone is the GM

with limited jurisdiction

and limited resources

Aye.

you start with more, but you are also limited

I already go to my players regularly to consult on rules adjudication and when I'm not sure what kind of story they'll like.

You don't have to know, you will find that out together

that's the game itself

yeah, I like the idea that aspects are how I put together scenarios.

This is the only mechanical prep I've done at all yet, and basically all I intend to do prior to city building: docs.google.com/document/d/…

I promised my group a year ago that if we ever did DFRPG there'd be an army of garden gnomes.

cool :)

I'd simplify the "conditional skills" in there, though

And, well. Garden gnomes just seem right for a low-level Dresdenverse story.

They are better off as aspects

Those mods are the result of the powers they've taken.

Like "What's this little thing over here?"

Hee.

All those conditional skill mods are from the Diminutive power.

Ah, ok

@BESW There has to be a bit more than that, however, and I say that from experience. It's more trust than anything- that if the GM makes a decision to move the story along (1) it's not going to be arbitrary, and (2) it will be assessed and discussed later, if necessary. Otherwise, you get mired in those discussions.

Yeah, I've been very lucky in the trust my groups are usually willing to give me, and I try to be worthy of it.

I don't have a problem with that either. But realizing that I needed to take control slowed down a few of the sessions as we consulted rules, etc.