Backstabbing/silent take down

[ducere1315]

You could set it up as a consequential contest. YS p.193
You don't need to have a power to inflict direct consequences, just good reason to do so.

[AlexFallad]

I think the most important element that keeps this simple and flexible is the previously mentioned concept that mooks don't take consequences.  The solid mechanics that do exist for stacking up tags and Ambushing allow for taking out even tougher opponents, and IMO that's all that's really necessary.

Just this last weekend my PC was Ambushed by a fellow PC because we were being manipulated by a spirit (but anyway...)  The attacker Set an Ambush aspect on the scene, I waltzed into it, and failed my Alertness check.  He has Weapons 3, a Weapon:1 knife, tagged the aspect, and rolled a +0 for 6 shifts of damage. 

Player Character/Hero Awesomeness:
I took a Mild Consequence and marked off the 4th P box.  My PC just managed to twist aside at the last second and took a Bad Cut to the lower back.

Mook NPC Not Worth Devoting Alot of Worry About:
Taken Out...gurgle
Yes, NPCs are people too, but he should have called in sick today...

[sjksprocket]

But how you deal with a diminutive fairy with a weapon 1? Or an eight year old? The diminutive power IIRC says something about not getting more then one shift for damage, then adding weapons, or did I read that wrong? A swipe for the jugular with a box cutter if sufficient should be a killing blow even with an eighteen inch character. How would you represent that? According to the rules with diminutive, it could not happen unless you do it several times. Even with only two boxes you would have to do that attack, and hit, five times to make it work. Am I missing something? I'll look up the consequential contests when I get the chance.

What page does it say mooks don't take consequence. I missed that. Even so you have to do it twice with a diminutive character. I'm trying to figure out a one shot thing here for that type of character specifically. The player is playing character that is toot-toot like.

[devonapple]

Even with only two boxes you would have to do that attack, and hit, five times to make it work. Am I missing something?

Well, hitting five times is an abstract concept that doesn't necessarily mean making five sword strokes. Theoretically the pixie could rack up several Maneuvers reflecting maneuvers that mislead, confuse, and manipulate the larger foe into being a ripe target for the killing blow.

[sinker]

Of note the diminutive size power says "When size is a factor in combat, you can only inflict 1 physical stress per attack." I would state that if you're just trying to open someone's jugular, or hit a small sensitive spot (the eye or similar) that size is not a factor. In fact the "Small is Big" trapping of that same power might imply that it would be easier for them to hit a small vulnerable spot.

[Wyrdrune]

i have a player who wants to play a character similar to garrett from the thief computer game series, and if she wants to take out nameless_guard_01_who_is_not_really_important_to_the_story i allow it to be done via consequences.

i know that's some heavy tweaking, but who wants a needless fight that doesn't furthen the plot?

[sinker]

The easier way to do it is from lack of consequences, but if it's working for you then keep doing it.

Of note Wyrdrune I just got through the wizard of sunset strip. It was decent.

[sjksprocket]

Of note the diminutive size power says "When size is a factor in combat, you can only inflict 1 physical stress per attack." I would state that if you're just trying to open someone's jugular, or hit a small sensitive spot (the eye or similar) that size is not a factor. In fact the "Small is Big" trapping of that same power might imply that it would be easier for them to hit a small vulnerable spot.

I actually didn't think about that. you bring up a good point there. I might have to try that first. I'm new to the system so I'm bound to make more of such mistakes.

[ironpoet]

Of note the diminutive size power says "When size is a factor in combat, you can only inflict 1 physical stress per attack." I would state that if you're just trying to open someone's jugular, or hit a small sensitive spot (the eye or similar) that size is not a factor. In fact the "Small is Big" trapping of that same power might imply that it would be easier for them to hit a small vulnerable spot.

Along the same lines, you could perform a maneuver/declaration to gain the "Aiming For The Jugular" Aspect and then Invoke that Aspect for the effect "Size is not a factor for this attack".  Otherwise, a player could always say they were attacking so that size wasn't a factor, which would negate one of the limitations of being small.

[sjksprocket]

Along the same lines, you could perform a maneuver/declaration to gain the "Aiming For The Jugular" Aspect and then Invoke that Aspect for the effect "Size is not a factor for this attack".  Otherwise, a player could always say they were attacking so that size wasn't a factor, which would negate one of the limitations of being small.

This is good thinking too. I didn't consider that. I might incorporate that a bit too, maybe situation dependent.

[AlexFallad]

What page does it say mooks don't take consequence. I missed that. Even so you have to do it twice with a diminutive character. I'm trying to figure out a one shot thing here for that type of character specifically. The player is playing character that is toot-toot like.

I'll dig through YS Running The Game etc. and get back to you, but it's definite that a GM can de facto decide how many, if any, consequences NPCs will take in the interest of moving things along (story over mechanics).  This works both ways though...if the GM feels like a PC has gotten too comfortable doing a certain thing a certain way in ANY system, said PC is going to get a surprise.

[mostlyawake]

Honestly, for your average mortal, I just have the assassin roll an opposed stealth roll, and call the mortal dead.

For a goon that might actually take a consequence (meaning 3-4 stress, and a -2 consequence, so 5-6 stress to take out), now we'll do two rolls: sneak (as a maneuver) and an actual attack roll. With a 4-5 skill and one maneuver (so 6-7 plus roll) versus someone starting at 0, the enemy is usually taken out in a hit,  but a careful person probably wants one more maneuver there (aiming or such).

For anything that's going to take more than one consequence, now the player needs to get really creative with taking them out.  We had a sniper hit for 28 stress before without magic, but it was a series of steps done to hunt a specific target plus a 5 fate point dump... so, still, he pulled off 18 stress without fate points.  That would take out probably anything but a major NPC or a PC.

The thing to remember is that as a GM, the game goes faster if you actually DO tell your players what it will take to kill the guy (as in, this dude's just an accountant, you can kill him with a successful stealth roll), vs "letting them figure it out".  As the "mystery" will make sure that they always try for 20 some hit stress on every random accountant.

[Drachasor]

I'll dig through YS Running The Game etc. and get back to you, but it's definite that a GM can de facto decide how many, if any, consequences NPCs will take in the interest of moving things along (story over mechanics).  This works both ways though...if the GM feels like a PC has gotten too comfortable doing a certain thing a certain way in ANY system, said PC is going to get a surprise.

It's page 327 under Nameless PCs, last paragraph..."In general, nameless NPCs should never accept consequences"

Otherwise you get oddities where it is far easier to knock someone out than kill them.  Average Joe is going to do a concession where he's knocked out rather than get put in traction.

[sjksprocket]

Cool. Thanks for all the help here. It will definitely come in handy when we finally get to.