Gun To The Head & Dead To Rights

[bibliophile20]

Been wondering how people handle situations where someone is dead to rights; gun barrel touching their scalp, knife on the neck, etc... and then... boom.  Do people: Invoke the Chunky Salsa Rule and say that their head is paste, roll for damage and fill consequences, somewhere in between, or... what? 

For example, what if Kincaid had pulled the trigger when he had Harry on the other end of a pistol barrel during his hello in Blood Rites?  Contact range, couldn't dodge... boom. 

[zenten]

Two ways.

One is where having someone dead to rights is a concession.  So part of the terms is you don't blow the guy's head off.

The other is where you stack up a series of manoeuvres to explain how you got to that point, enough that there's basically no way for someone to get out of this without blowing a whole bunch of fate points.

[Wolfwood2]

One is where having someone dead to rights is a concession.  So part of the terms is you don't blow the guy's head off.

Exactly.  Before you can answer the question of, "What happens if someone has you dead to rights?" you must first answer the question of how the character got in that position to begin with.  Mechanically, it probably happened as a result of losing/conceding a conflict.  Or maybe it was a compel, in which case part of the compel is going to be acting like someone has you dead to rights for the scene (or until its purpose is completed).

[zenten]

Exactly.  Before you can answer the question of, "What happens if someone has you dead to rights?" you must first answer the question of how the character got in that position to begin with.  Mechanically, it probably happened as a result of losing/conceding a conflict.  Or maybe it was a compel, in which case part of the compel is going to be acting like someone has you dead to rights for the scene (or until its purpose is completed).

Oh, I just realized you could probably evoke for effect to do the same thing too, off of a stealth manoeuvre or the like.  Still wouldn't be better than tagging an aspect for actually killing the person though.

[Sanctaphrax]

I'd say that putting someone in that sort of situation requires taking them out or at least winning an extended skill contest. If it's just a maneuver, then the target can escape via contrived coincidence. But if it's a take-out result or something like that, then you can kill them with no questions asked.

Not that you should do that to your players, of course.

PS: Have you ever seen the Cowboy Bebop movie? That movie contains piles of examples of gun-to-head maneuvers failing to work.

[mostlyawake]

Keep in mind that, despite the books, in the game your defensive magic item would still go off, and/or you'd still get a dodge roll.

Regardless of how you got there, you're looking at an Aspect somehow placed on the character of "Dead to Rights".  The attacker can use this to get a bonus on the attack roll, or to compel the defender into not moving or the like. Which means the defender is getting a dodge or a chance to buy out of a compel.

[devonapple]

Champions (Hero System) had a maneuver called "Covered" which allowed a character to "pre-hit" a target with an attack (taking a -2 to the roll) which would not "hit" unless the target moved. Generally this was to hasten the surrender of an opponent. There was no guarantee of a defeat: simply that the attack would automatically hit. You could technically "cover" the Incredible Hulk with a derringer, for all that would be worth.

Depending on the narrative situation, incorporating this into a Taken Out or Concession situation makes the most sense, but owing to the wide variety of ways to elude a "cover," keeping this as a Maneuver to place an Aspect seems the most efficient: the Aspect can be tagged for a +2 to hit.

Alternately, if what you are trying to do is just keep the target from doing anything, it sounds like it could also be a Block using Guns as the blocking skill.

[Tedronai]

Possible option:
Use a maneuver to represent getting into position
If the time comes to blow their head off (meaning that they haven't simply conceded), invoke-for-effect the resulting aspect from the above maneuver to trigger a compel against the target to forfeit their defense roll

[devonapple]

Possible option:
Use a maneuver to represent getting into position
If the time comes to blow their head off (meaning that they haven't simply conceded), invoke-for-effect the resulting aspect from the above maneuver to trigger a compel against the target to forfeit their defense roll

It's brutal, but it *seems* within the rules, and it doesn't guarantee a kill, just a nice solid hit which the attacker still has an outside chance to flub. And if the opponent has any Fate Points, they're going to buy out of that one!

[mostlyawake]

... invoke-for-effect the resulting aspect from the above maneuver to trigger a compel against the target to forfeit their defense roll

Actually, this is a common use of many maneuvers. It's essentially what you're doing with stealth vs awareness and the target not getting a defense.  Knock someone down into the mud? Tagging it to remove defenses often benefits you more than the +2 to your roll would.  Well, except that you give them a fate point. 

[jybil178]

Actually, this is a common use of many maneuvers. It's essentially what you're doing with stealth vs awareness and the target not getting a defense.  Knock someone down into the mud? Tagging it to remove defenses often benefits you more than the +2 to your roll would.  Well, except that you give them a fate point. 

Actually, the Stealth vs Awareness doesn't fall under a compel or invoke for effect.  It simply falls under the trappings of Stealth, Ambush in particular.  And even then, the target doesn't COMPLETELY lose the ability to defend, he is just defaulted to an effective skill level of Mediocre.

Besides that, I don't know if I really want to get much into this debate...  I agree that some sort of method  may be usable for a dead to rights situation, but I'm not entirely sure what my feelings are for it, and I just overall dislike the whole invoke for effect to negate someones defenses entirely...  It can just easily become abusable, and quickly becomes the ONLY use of a temporary aspect on opponents ;P  It just starts and sets a really nasty precedent.

But you also have to remember another part of the "rules."  Rolls of the dice should only come up when thematically appropriate.  You don't roll the dice when you go to start your car.  You don't roll your dice when your out grocery shopping...  Should you roll your dice when you have a Joe-Shmo tied up, and dead to rights?  Sure, getting information out of him might come to rolls..  But why bother rolling, when you can just take as many shots to them as you need to make sure the job is done right...  Though this also starts to set a nasty precedent, a mix and match of different methods might overall come to the best way of doing something like this.

[DFJunkie]

Should you roll your dice when you have a Joe-Shmo tied up, and dead to rights?

Not unless there's a reason to.  Every situation is different.  If Mr. Shmo was captured as part of a concession him spilling his guts might be part of the negotiation.  On the other hand, if Joe has a decent shot at resisting their efforts long enough to matter (he might escape, the PCs are operating under a time constraint) then rolling is entirely appropriate, especially if there's drama to be had from a PC having to decide between using harsher, less moral methods to expedite things.

[Kommisar]

Every situation is different and, IMHO, the FATE system provides (intentionally) many ways to approach this sort of scenario.

Take Kincaid with the gun to Harry's head.  I take that to be a social challenge actually.  Intimidation, with the weapon in this case adding it's rating to the social stress dealt.  "Wha?", Harry losses and takes enough stress to take a consequence.  Something like "Your Dead".  Or "Kincaid's got me Cold".  Or, perhaps Kincaid was so good here and Harry rolled so poorly that he actually got Taken Out as part of the social conflict.  Or he could have conceded the social conflict to avoid taking those stresses and consequences with the agreement that Kincaid was just going to make a point here and not dish out Harry's skull.  All possibilities that work with the situation.

I know, not really the question at hand; but I saw this as a great example of a solid Social Conflict.

NOW, should the trigger be pulled, then I would allow for Kincaid to tag or invoke off of that consequence for the physical action.  And, chances are, Kincaid piled up at least one or two other maneuvers (Aimed, Flanked, Point Blank) during those moments.  Also, in this case I would actually allow for Kincaid to invoke the consequence to allow him to bypass Harry's Magical Coat.  He would also, as mentioned, send Harry's defense here to Mediocre as he slipped up and got the drop on Harry. 

It also really matters if you are doing this against a mook/goon/henchman or against a named NPC or player.  As mentioned many times before in other threads, the minion types will probably just go to taken out, do not pass Go.  I did this for expediency in my game when my stealth heavy players started stalking and taking out some guards outside a building.  There was enough of a gap in their power level there that as long as she kept making her stealth rolls, she was taking out the guards as I had them concede.  Until she tried it on the Red Court Vamp that is.  Loved the look on her face when I told her that one didn't concede.  LOL

As for someone tied up, bound and completely helpless.  It's the GMs call of the situation; but most of the time an execution is an execution and the target should simply concede unless there are extraordinary circumstances.  The captive is actually an ancient dragon in disguise, or whatever.

[Eunomiac]

I think something should also be said regarding the type of game you're playing.  You can figure this out by answering these questions: "Can a PC reliably knock someone out without killing them?", "Can you shoot at someone through unbroken glass?" and "Can you blow up a car by shooting at its gas tank?"

If you tend to answer no to these questions, then your game is gritty and realistic.  Make it a lot harder to place [Dead To Rights] on someone, BUT make the compels off of it especially harsh for the poor victim.  Maybe bar the maneuver entirely until set-up maneuvers have placed both [Oblivious Bastard] and [Right Behind You] on the NPC.  (This is the equivalent of three taggable aspects, which is +4 to the attack plus a compel for no defense.)

If you answered yes to both, then your game is pulpy/high-drama/Hollywood game.  Make it easier to place [Dead To Rights], but make it equally easier for the NPC to escape it (happens in the movies all the time; see Cowboy Bebop reference above).  The same series of maneuvers could make [Dead To Rights] harder to escape, instead of being prerequisites for it.

A few other ideas:

• a social or mental attempt to distract you, removing [Dead To Rights] per the rules for removing aspects
• a Guns-based declaration by the NPC, defended by your own Guns skill, that you're suffering from [Delusions Of Endless Ammo]  ("Do you feel lucky, punk?")
• an invoke/compel of some aspect that strikes you with bad luck, jamming your gun
• let the NPC get shot and take an extreme consequence (if absorbing 8 stress would save him), changing some aspect related to his/her mental state to [Bullet In The Brain], or maybe [Quadriplegic], creating a really interesting NPC that survived a point-blank gunshot wound to the head

[LokiTM]

I think this may be a problem of the level of simulation in this game. One is not playing through each move and shift of position.

I would say that "I sneak up behind him, put a gun to his head, and blow him away" would be the narration around the "taken out" after you invoke all the setup aspects and see that you did in fact waste this poor guy. If you failed to hit or do enough damage, then the narration might be that he heard your foot step at the last moment.

If the victim is actually tied to a chair and completely incapacitated, I would treat this as an extended (and possibly delayed) part of the "taken out" which lead you to have him completely tied up in the first place. The book does not really support it, but it makes sense to me. If the victim is 100% in your power there is no point to rolls.