Can combat be exciting if there's no chance of PC death?

[Waddacku]

You're apparently laboring under two misconceptions.

One is that PvP is the intended usage for FATE. It isn't. If intra-party conflict occurs, the concessions and defeat are there for the players to decide on an outcome that they both find satisfactory on a narrative level.

The second is that you don't seem to realize damage is also sustained during combat. In addition to your stress tracks, there are also consequences. Getting taken out without conceding means you've taken at least three Consequences. The least consequences only last until the next scene, normally, but you're also saddled with one that lasts at least a session, and one that lasts an entire story arc. This means all your opposition now has more weaknesses in you to exploit for that duration, but also that taking you out again will be far, far easier. It is by no means a small deal, to the point where it may often be worth conceding even if you would have eventually won, so as to not have to live with that.

[ReaderAt2046]

Okay, I think a good way to illustrate the problem here is to point out how "conceding" is no different than "being defeated by your opponent." The example given earlier was that, if you don't concede and are defeated, your foe could cut off your head, but if you conceded, you could decide you ran away (or something). It has been stated since that, if your foe's goal was to kill you, then you can't "concede" and get away with your life. So the question is thus begged: why did he decide to kill you after defeating you rather than just taking what he wanted? He obviously wants you dead. So how can your concession NOT undermine his victory if you deny him your death?

No, you've completely misunderstood how concessions work. Yes, you CAN "'concede' and get away with your life". That's the entire reason you're conceding in the first place. You just have to accept that you're going to have to take some kind of loss or disadvantage in exchange for surviving. Basically, you're trading the possibility of either a victory or a complete loss for the certainty of a partial loss.

So if your opponent is trying to kill you, then conceding might mean that you escape, but automatically take an additional "consequence" (consequences are bad things that you get when you take too much damage, and they take a while to heal). You still lose, but you don't completely lose. Your opponent still wins, but he doesn't fully win.

[Cronocke]

No, you've completely misunderstood how concessions work. Yes, you CAN "'concede' and get away with your life". That's the entire reason you're conceding in the first place. You just have to accept that you're going to have to take some kind of loss or disadvantage in exchange for surviving. Basically, you're trading the possibility of either a victory or a complete loss for the certainty of a partial loss.

So if your opponent is trying to kill you, then conceding might mean that you escape, but automatically take an additional "consequence" (consequences are bad things that you get when you take too much damage, and they take a while to heal). You still lose, but you don't completely lose. Your opponent still wins, but he doesn't fully win.

It's worth reiterating that conceding doesn't take place between the PCs and the NPCs, but rather between the players and the GM. The NPCs may have "kill the PCs" as the goal, but that shouldn't be the goal of the GM. The example given earlier with a superhero and supervillain was very good about this - just because the characters wanted certain things, that didn't mean the player and GM had the same desires.

[Segev]

So what's to stop me from "conceding" every time in a way that doesn't actually cost me, because the consequences won't matter when I plan to "concede" every time and get what I really wanted as my "how I lose" condition?

[ReaderAt2046]

So what's to stop me from "conceding" every time in a way that doesn't actually cost me, because the consequences won't matter when I plan to "concede" every time and get what I really wanted as my "how I lose" condition?

It's very rare that you can get what you actually wanted as your "loss condition". Usually if you try that, the Narrator will refuse to accept it because, well, you didn't lose.

I think you're looking at the whole concession mechanic through a very rules-based lens, where it's a story-based mechanic. Each concession is a negotiation with the Narrator.

[Kalmageddon]

It's worth reiterating that conceding doesn't take place between the PCs and the NPCs, but rather between the players and the GM. The NPCs may have "kill the PCs" as the goal, but that shouldn't be the goal of the GM. The example given earlier with a superhero and supervillain was very good about this - just because the characters wanted certain things, that didn't mean the player and GM had the same desires.

Doesn't that screw with the narrative, though?
In superhero comics we are willing to put up with inconsistencies in the behaviour of the characters, because it's something that is part of the genre, what with most mainstream comic books being decades old and having passed through multiple writers and reboots.

But in a roleplaying game, I feel it would be awkward to have a charater, who obviously wants to kill you, spare you only because you negotiated with the GM OOC. Which I'd like to point out is something you can do in literally any roleplaying game that has a GM, but whatever, I know this one complaint falls to deaf ears.
Anyway, I'm just saying that it feels really cheap and immersion breaking when you have to talk OOC in order to have your PC survive.

Beside, if this is specifically about trivial encounters going badly because of bad luck, most of the times this is a non-issue: the GM can already fudge the dices if he deems it appropriate. Or just figure some deus ex machina on the spot... Which is essentialy what this "mechanic" is, only the system legitimizes it and gives it a name. And tells the players to break character in order to make it work...

[Segev]

I think, personally, I'd be better off using an even more rules-lite game if I wanted what FATE is trying to deliver, then. Such as Risus. FATE sounds too much like it goes into too much detail on generation and then passes resolution off to narration. Which defeats the purpose of detailed generation.

Admittedly, I haven't looked into FATE beyond what others have told me about it. It could turn out to be much better in practice than it sounds, to me. But I have yet to hear anything about it that sounds like it's going to deliver either the mechanical depth needed to pay off for the effort that goes into building a character in it, nor the ease of entry and simplicity of the narrative system it seems to want to be.

[Waddacku]

Doesn't that screw with the narrative, though?
In superhero comics we are willing to put up with inconsistencies in the behaviour of the characters, because it's something that is part of the genre, what with most mainstream comic books being decades old and having passed through multiple writers and reboots.

But in a roleplaying game, I feel it would be awkward to have a charater, who obviously wants to kill you, spare you only because you negotiated with the GM OOC.

They don't just spare you. Events somehow conspire to spare your life. The character that defeats you doesn't choose what happens, the player controlling them does, with an explicit goal in the rules to make the story more satisfying for everyone at the table.

I think, personally, I'd be better off using an even more rules-lite game if I wanted what FATE is trying to deliver, then. Such as Risus. FATE sounds too much like it goes into too much detail on generation and then passes resolution off to narration. Which defeats the purpose of detailed generation.

Admittedly, I haven't looked into FATE beyond what others have told me about it. It could turn out to be much better in practice than it sounds, to me. But I have yet to hear anything about it that sounds like it's going to deliver either the mechanical depth needed to pay off for the effort that goes into building a character in it, nor the ease of entry and simplicity of the narrative system it seems to want to be.

FATE barely has more effort involved in character generation than Risus does. The main part of it is literally making up short phrases that somehow relate to your character (descriptions, quotes, whatever). Then you stuff the skills into whatever spots on the chart that have the numbers you want, and maybe (or save it for later) decide on a couple really simple stunts (most are along the lines of "+2 if using Skill X in Context Y". But that last one is really just for a bit more crunch and mechanical specialization.

FATE Accelerated is even simpler, but I don't like it. Far too vague.

[Sartharina]

So what's to stop me from "conceding" every time in a way that doesn't actually cost me, because the consequences won't matter when I plan to "concede" every time and get what I really wanted as my "how I lose" condition?

You'll probably be safe, but you'll never win, either. At the very least, you lose your chance at victory. You usually concede after already losing something, as well - so you essentially rack up stress and consequences prior to conceding without any payoff from them.

Beside, if this is specifically about trivial encounters going badly because of bad luck, most of the times this is a non-issue: the GM can already fudge the dices if he deems it appropriate. Or just figure some deus ex machina on the spot... Which is essentialy what this "mechanic" is, only the system legitimizes it and gives it a name. And tells the players to break character in order to make it work...

While this is a common practice, it is actually not part of the rules of the systems. These practices require the DM to cheat and break rules. FATE merely codifies this behavior into the rules.

[kyoryu]

So what's to stop me from "conceding" every time in a way that doesn't actually cost me, because the consequences won't matter when I plan to "concede" every time and get what I really wanted as my "how I lose" condition?

Well, that's a matter of why you're fighting. You're supposed to be upfront with what you're trying to get, and the GM is supposed to be upfront with what the opponents are trying to get.

"I want to kill them" isn't *usually* what people are trying to get - it's a way to achieve a goal, not the goal itself.

As an example, if you want to get in a hobgoblin fortress, and there are guards, there's gonna be a fight. Each side wants to kill each other, right?

Not really. The PCs want to get in, and the hobgobs want to prevent that. If the hobgobs weren't guarding the fortress, the PCs wouldn't care about them, and if the PCs weren't trying to get in, the hobgobs wouldn't care about them. If there weren't these conflicting goals, neither party would go out of their way to try and track down the other.

To put it a different way - there's lots of hobgoblins in the world. Why are you fighting *these specific* ones, and not others?

So if you're trying to get into the fortress, and you concede, you *don't get into the fortress*. Similarly, if the hobgobs concede, they *don't keep you out of the fortress*. That's the limit of the negotiations. You can't concede your way into victory.

[kyoryu]

BTW, the answer to whether combat can be exciting with no chance of PC death is an emphatic YES!

But what you need is to have something at stake. Something that can be lost. PC death is an easy way to get this, since it's obvious and straightforward and pretty much everybody understands and cares about it.

Let's say you're going into the Lethal Labyrinth to get the Goblet of Good to cure Princess Perky of the Corrupting Curse. And in the Labyrinth, you come upon the Mighty Minotaur.

Okay, great. So if you defeat him, you can go on and get the Goblet and cure the Princess and everyone lives happily ever after.

But... what if you *don't*? And then you *don't* get the Goblet. What happens? That's the interesting question here, and that's what is going to create tension and excitement even in cases where the PCs aren't likely to die.

If they just don't get some reward.... so what? I mean, really, who cares?

If that means that Princess Perky becomes the evil Princess Pain, and summons a million demons to infest the land, then the players are going to care a bit more.

[Waddacku]

To be succinct, you can't concede in such a way that you "really win" because conceding by definition means you lose.

[Cronocke]

So what's to stop me from "conceding" every time in a way that doesn't actually cost me, because the consequences won't matter when I plan to "concede" every time and get what I really wanted as my "how I lose" condition?

Because that's not conceding. When you concede, you accept that your primary goal failed - whether that was "get the microfilm back to the general" or "get into the demon castle" or "rescue the princess from the bandits" or whatever. You get out of the fight, but not with what you came for. Similarly, they get what they wanted - they keep the microfilm, blockade your entrance into the castle, or keep the princess - but don't get to finish you off.

Doesn't that screw with the narrative, though?
In superhero comics we are willing to put up with inconsistencies in the behaviour of the characters, because it's something that is part of the genre, what with most mainstream comic books being decades old and having passed through multiple writers and reboots.

This has nothing to do with the concession mechanic.

But in a roleplaying game, I feel it would be awkward to have a charater, who obviously wants to kill you, spare you only because you negotiated with the GM OOC. Which I'd like to point out is something you can do in literally any roleplaying game that has a GM, but whatever, I know this one complaint falls to deaf ears.
Anyway, I'm just saying that it feels really cheap and immersion breaking when you have to talk OOC in order to have your PC survive.

The thing is that they don't randomly decide to spare you against their own characterization - events play out that you escape with your life. You're fighting to the death, and just when he was about to strike the killing blow, a dragon flew overhead and in the ensuing chaos of panic you were able to escape - now the question is, why did that dragon appear? Or you're fighting to the death, and he's winning, but then a misstep sends you falling down a ravine at the edge of the arena, and he refuses to follow, thinking you're surely dead... but you're miraculously not, and there's something hidden in this ravine that you can then find to advance the plot a little. Or you're fighting to the death, and he's winning, but then another party member fires off a distracting shot from his bow, and you use that moment to flee from him - and he won't pursue you because he has other things to do that would probably be better uses of his time.

It's a way of advancing the narrative, having the winner achieve their main objective, and keeping a PC from being killed by bad luck or a single hasty decision at a bad time.

A lot of games have OOC chatter, this is just a way to make such a thing useful in the continuing narrative.

Beside, if this is specifically about trivial encounters going badly because of bad luck, most of the times this is a non-issue: the GM can already fudge the dices if he deems it appropriate. Or just figure some deus ex machina on the spot... Which is essentialy what this "mechanic" is, only the system legitimizes it and gives it a name. And tells the players to break character in order to make it work...

The thing is, what you're talking about is breaking or bending the rules of the game to get a desired result. Instead, the game actually tells you, do this thing to get the results you want at your gaming table.

To be succinct, you can't concede in such a way that you "really win" because conceding by definition means you lose.

Ahh, Xanatos, you slippery jerk...

[Kalmageddon]

A lot of games have OOC chatter, this is just a way to make such a thing useful in the continuing narrative.

Uhm... No? Most roleplaying games frown upon OOC, sure you have to use the appropriate terminology for actions and special attacks, but it's basically a sentence, which, unless the game uses some very abstruse terminologies (like D&D), comes down to simply describing what you are doing IC. No gaming system that I know of encourages the players to actually argue with the GM.
FATE does, under a guise of cooperative storytelling, and prides itself in it.

When I'm a player, as opposed to a GM, I don't want to decide where the narrative is going OOC, I don't want to come up with excuses for things to happen. I certanly don't want to break character and negotiate with the GM on what happens when I screw up.

The thing is, what you're talking about is breaking or bending the rules of the game to get a desired result. Instead, the game actually tells you, do this thing to get the results you want at your gaming table.

GM can't break the rules. They decide when to apply them and when not to. By definiton a GM can't cheat, expecially if there is no way to find out,like when you fudge a roll, something virtually any GM does sooner or later. If I trust my GM I don't need the game to tell me anything.
In fact, what FATE does is taking a commonplace practice and instead of just explicitly legitimizing it (Look guys, the GM can and should save you from cheap TPKs, but don't press your luck <-- There, I've done it.) it makes it intrusive and "in your face", impossible to ignore.
If I want to avoid having my character killed by a few bad rolls, I have to Concede then I have to talk to my GM OOC and then I have to come up with some excuse to save my character.
All of this instead of just trusting the GM.
A bad GM wont' save you even if the rules say you can negotiate with him. A good GM doesn't need negotiations to save you from cheap and anti-climactic death, unless of course the campaign is survival focused, but that's another matter...

I'll be honest, I've read the manual, I've argued about it on this forum and yet I still don't think FATE does anything well. The mechanics are either samey or undeveloped concepts based around metagame and OOC communication.

At this point we simply have to agree to disagree. I can't be bothered with the same arguments over and over again. I point out that something in FATE is simply a commonplace concept and not a real mechanic and people reply by basically saying "no, it's in the manual, it's written down and it has a name, therefore it's a legit game mechanic". Doesn't matter if what is being described is as basic and obvious as breathing, FATE has given it a capital letter name, so now FATE legit owns that concept.

I really had enough. If you enjoy playing it, fine. Nobody is trying to stop you.
But for the love of God at least stop posting how great FATE game mechanic are, it's insulting to games where the designers actually came up with something that has crunch and balance and doesn't rely on OOC discussion and agreement to work.

[kyoryu]

In fact, what FATE does is taking a commonplace practice and instead of just explicitly legitimizing it (Look guys, the GM can and should save you from cheap TPKs, but don't press your luck <-- There, I've done it.) it makes it intrusive and "in your face", impossible to ignore.
If I want to avoid having my character killed by a few bad rolls, I have to Concede then I have to talk to my GM OOC and then I have to come up with some excuse to save my character.

From my perspective, that's a misunderstanding of how Concessions work.

Succeeding in Fate is often a matter of whether you're willing to pay the price or not. I've described Fate conflicts as a combination of a bidding war and chicken. Conceding isn't "saving your butt". It's swerving the car/dropping out of the bidding war. Sometimes you'll do that only at the last second. Sometimes you'll do it relatively quickly, even if you could have succeeded if you were willing to spend enough Consequences/Fate Points.

I'll certainly acknowledge that it's one of the more OOC bits of Fate. And it's not for everyone. But I don't really see it as a mechanized way of fudging to avoid a TPK.

[Cronocke]

Uhm... No? Most roleplaying games frown upon OOC, sure you have to use the appropriate terminology for actions and special attacks, but it's basically a sentence, which, unless the game uses some very abstruse terminologies (like D&D), comes down to simply describing what you are doing IC. No gaming system that I know of encourages the players to actually argue with the GM.

And... neither does FATE, it just tells you that when a fight is about to end, everyone involved should agree what the ending is, and gives you a way to achieve that without either hoping the dice work out that way or that GM fiat fits what everyone wants.

When I'm a player, as opposed to a GM, I don't want to decide where the narrative is going OOC, I don't want to come up with excuses for things to happen. I certanly don't want to break character and negotiate with the GM on what happens when I screw up.

I can't speak for you, but I've frequently had the situation where my character is presented with "you're at this place, what do you do" and I ask the GM, out of character, what is going on in the area, or if I see something that might interest my character, or things like that. Now, you may not think of this as "out of character" since I'm describing what my character wants and is seeking, but I'm not doing it in the first person. "Bob would be looking for fellow soldiers to share a drink with, are there any around?" is technically you, the player, asking the GM to throw you a bone. It's not exactly concession, but that's similar to how I would work it into a game.

GM can't break the rules. They decide when to apply them and when not to. By definiton a GM can't cheat, expecially if there is no way to find out,like when you fudge a roll, something virtually any GM does sooner or later. If I trust my GM I don't need the game to tell me anything.
In fact, what FATE does is taking a commonplace practice and instead of just explicitly legitimizing it (Look guys, the GM can and should save you from cheap TPKs, but don't press your luck <-- There, I've done it.) it makes it intrusive and "in your face", impossible to ignore.
If I want to avoid having my character killed by a few bad rolls, I have to Concede then I have to talk to my GM OOC and then I have to come up with some excuse to save my character.
All of this instead of just trusting the GM.
A bad GM wont' save you even if the rules say you can negotiate with him. A good GM doesn't need negotiations to save you from cheap and anti-climactic death, unless of course the campaign is survival focused, but that's another matter...

You are reading way too much into this. This isn't - and shouldn't be used as - something where you stop the game for 30 minutes and have a debate on the relative merits of one resolution versus another. This is something as simple as,

Player: Wow, I really screwed up.
GM: Hey, don't sweat it. I've got an idea for how Ronath the Ranger can survive this. You down with that?
Player: Sure, yeah, as long as it makes sense.

and then the GM tells the player his idea, and if they both think it makes sense, that's what happens. And the player gets a consolation prize to help offset the loss they just suffered.

At this point we simply have to agree to disagree.

I agree with you on this. You've clearly made up your mind already, and had done so from the start, frankly.

I'll be honest, I've read the manual, I've argued about it on this forum and yet I still don't think FATE does anything well. The mechanics are either samey or undeveloped concepts based around metagame and OOC communication.
[snip]
I can't be bothered with the same arguments over and over again. I point out that something in FATE is simply a commonplace concept and not a real mechanic and people reply by basically saying "no, it's in the manual, it's written down and it has a name, therefore it's a legit game mechanic". Doesn't matter if what is being described is as basic and obvious as breathing, FATE has given it a capital letter name, so now FATE legit owns that concept.
I really had enough. If you enjoy playing it, fine. Nobody is trying to stop you.
But for the love of God at least stop posting how great FATE game mechanic are, it's insulting to games where the designers actually came up with something that has crunch and balance and doesn't rely on OOC discussion and agreement to work.

But here is where you lose me. You are calling the game worthless because one of its mechanics is something you do not like on principle. You are saying that it is insulting to games and designers, and saying that it has neither crunch nor balance. You are saying that something written in the rules is pointless because you can houserule it in other games.

To be honest, I could make such arguments about D&D 3.5 - that its rules are clunky, its concept of balance is hilarious and wrong, its crunch heavily favors one set of character concepts over all others, it has no way to resolve encounters besides a simple pass/fail mechanic unless you houserule it heavily, insulting to games and designers, etc.

Am I right in saying those things? Maybe, maybe not. The fact remains that a lot of people continue to play the game in spite of what I perceive as failings. Clearly they see something in it that I don't. And the existence of countless spinoffs and heartbreakers derived from the same rules and concepts means something.

FATE isn't your cuppa. That's fine. But don't talk about it like it's a broken, worthless thing when clearly loads of people find a lot to love about it.

[Waddacku]

"Has to rely on"... FATE is designed with the philosophy that this is desirable, not a crutch. Storygames in general are. Not enjoying storygames is perfectly fine (in fact, I find them less interesting than normal roleplaying games), but decrying them as worthless and insulting? That's absolutely ridiculous.

[Tanuki Tales]

Kalm only made such comments regarding FATE, not Storytelling games in general, so you really shouldn't put words in his mouth. I don't have a dog in this discussion, but I felt like saying that.

[thematgreen]

I recently ran a Homebrew Pathfinder campaign involving a zombie outbreak. All zombies had 1 health, but used a D6 to attack 1-3 for the first attack roll and you were grabbed, 5-6 and you were bitten, and d4 for damage. Easy to kill, but when ther are 40 of them it can get bad.

There was a fight where the goal was to save 10 NPCs trapped outside the inn. Each NPC was trapped by 2-6 zombies. The group easily crushed the first group and saved the NPC. One of the players was like "this is easy".

I would roll a d6 ever round and never explained why. Then I rolled a 1 and the first NPC died.

So it went from "let's mow down some ezmode zombies" to "Uhh, we have to hurry" all in all they lost 3 NPC's, which effected their standing with that area of the city.

The whole campaign was like that, easy enemies that were easy to kill but that didn't matter when trying to save a city.

The group loved it. It went from fight fight fight to having to think during combat, always being rushed. If they stopped to chat and I rolled a 1-3 on my d6 they were attacked by zombies. If they messed around then people would die.

(Side Note: Certain actions and quest results effected the standing of the players in the city. For example, the best result of one quest rewarded the group with disposing of the need for diplomacy checks to get information in that part of the city, the worst result meant that the group was always lied to)

[DawnQuixotic]

I seldom go with PC death.
If it's not a TPK, everyone is considered to have scraped by, with 1 hit point, and just in need of a reviving.
Like Pokémon or something.

Because my way of thinking is... what's really the *consequence* of dying?
In real life, the consequence of dying is you are dead. You don't exist anymore. (You might believe otherwise, but there's still enough uncertainty and attachment to your life in this world that it's not something you're just going to be apathetic about).

In a RPG, it means your character is gone. But this isn't Dark Dungeons, you aren't going to be kicked out of the campaign because your character died. You just roll up a new character.
And if you're playing a shallow campaign, and your dwarf fighter Foirin Cleavestone dies, there's really nothing stopping you from making his identical twin brother Austin Cleavestone to take his place. (The GM might roll his eyes at you and protest, but this invites hard feelings).
If it's a deeper game, then it's a waste of the character and their story arc to just end with no real point.

So I try to come up with other things they might lose. If the part really screws up and suffers a TPK in a fair encounter, they might get looted and lose some items. One of their favorite NPCs might die.


A lot of this is dramatic story building tension. You players might not fear death, either because they know their character won't die or won't care. But they surely fear failure. The specifics of it depend on how they are invested in the game.

[Airk]

That was quite aptly summarized. I agree.

I think the whole 'there has to be the threat of death!!' camp flows from early D&D games where, really, the threat of death was "you lose all your levels (and probably your stuff)." and since the whole point of the game was to get levels and stuff, there were stakes. But in most games these days? Not so much.