So How much Stress would a Subway Train cause?

[ways and means]

I was wondering what do people would think would happen to a Black Court Vampire pushed into the path of a Tube Train which runs at about 50mph, as the result of party effort involving a deceleration, a maneuver, a block and a cheesy pun reminding the vampire to mind the gap. If it was a human I would just say dead but because he is a Black Court Vampire I wonder if he could take it and whether I should just give him a moderate - extreme consequence?

[Tedronai]

This is either a concession (probably death), a taken out result (even more probably death), or an attack somewhere in the range of weapon 5-7 (probably death unless affecting an otherwise-largely-unharmed plot-critical character).

[HobbitWarrior]

I'd base it on how thorough they were in making sure he was dead.  If they bothered to make sure the guy was down or if the vampire literally just kersplatted against the train and was carried away.  That followed by how important the guy was in the story.  Big villain, well, black courts are supposed to be juggernauts of dark energy anyway.  I'd probably bring him back out of pure spite for them not being thorough enough. 

Screaming for blood, seconds after taking a love tap from a train...maybe not.  But definitely down the line a bit.  There's something particularly effective with the thought that someone you were so positively sure was dead and out of your life is still kicking and nursing a big grudge.

[Richard_Chilton]

Could it use its Gaseous Form before being struck?

As to how much stress, I think that's up the table to decide.  I'd say "death" but I'd also say that if there was a PC involved.  It sounds like a classic "Harry killed this way" thing to do.

One thing to remember is the ridiculous amount of stress a BCV can take.  An average one can take 9 (NINE!) levels of physical stress without needing to take consequences (assuming that it wasn't a Holy Train).  That means there's an out if the table thinks that it should live... Say with limping after them with consequences reflecting the damage it took before it switched forms.

Richard

[Vairelome]

In the short story, It's My Birthday, Too, Harry uses a gravity-manipulating earth spell to drop a substantial chunk of a mall on top of a newly-made BCV.  Shortly thereafter, the hand sticking out of the rubble grabs the leg of a girl running past it, and it takes some effort to break the superhuman strength of the BCV's grip.

They may look all beat-up and gross, but BCVs are seriously tough supernatural creatures until one of their catches comes into play.

Now, if it got run over by the Soul Train....

[Silverblaze]

I might treat it as a hazard of "X" stress.  Similar to falling off of a skyscraper or something.  Likely with a death result, but not necessarily.

I think it might be good to decide what sort of stress high damage hazards do. 

I might start a thread about hazards and traps.  It might be good to compile them.  Terminal velocity (or usually terminal velocity): ?
The log trap from Return of the Jedi:?

(click to show/hide)

(it killed an AT-ST...)

Magnesium flares?
Thermite charges?
Claymore mines?

etc.

[Katarn]

First of all, story comes first.  If you (the GM) need a recurring villain, the Blamp could easily have survived that in many methods.  Possible outcomes regardless:

*Gaeous Form, no significant damage
*moderate consequence (assuming no combat preceding)
*severre consequence (some combat preceding)
*Taken out (badly broken)- after long battle
*Taken out (ker-splat)

It if it was a novice, I'd assume one of the latter 2 outcomes almost regardless of consequence.  A more experienced Blampire could have any of these, the first if they were smart or lucky.  A Master Blampire (like Mavra or anyone somewhat closer to her power level) would likely pull a Gaeous Form methinks.

[sinker]

To be honest I think that's the wrong question. It's an inanimate object with no initial story importance. It deals no stress. Now if a player wields it (gives it story importance, likely via declarations, maneuvers and attacks) then it deals the amount of stress that the player makes it deal via his rolls. If a GM wields it, then it deals the amount of stress that is necessary for the desired outcome. The train itself has no bearing on the situation at all.

[ARedthorn]

good call, sinker- GM determines desired outcome, picks a number that will cause that outcome, then storytells it to fit (ie, if the number is low, say the conductor was slamming the brakes on, etc) -but a baseline still makes sense for the more type-A GMs among us.

Typically, I'd do something like figure out how much damage a fall at the subway's speed was, and use that as a benchmark for comparison, but last time I tried that, I discovered that fall damage in Dresden is a bit... overdone.


Ballpark- enough direct stress to take out anything mortal in one hit, but to also be survivable by a mortal with 'hero' status (ie, consequences, if he's willing to blow an extreme or more on it)... 7-9 sounds fair, as suggested above.

Are we thinking about this right though? It's not really a weapon being used by someone- it's a basic attack enhanced by environmental factors.

Normally that would be the purview of tapping an aspect (like <High-traffic Subway line>) to improve damage, but some environmental stuff goes way beyond an extra 2 damage...
Like... grappling someone does 1 or 2 (depending on stunts)... throwing them into a wall does 3 or 4, maybe 5 (depending on stunts, fists, and defense roll)... throwing them into <Nearby Pool of Lava> probably ought to do more than throwing them into a <Nearby Stack of Crates>.

Most other games I play have some sort of combined team effect that's far greater than the sum of it's parts... dresden... sorta does, but not to the level I'm used to.
As a GM, I'd say... have a player roll an attack, tap the declared and maneuvered aspect, then gain a further +2 for the pun (minimum)... you're looking at base damage +6 already there.
If, like me, you think some aspects should be more significant, let those aspects stack (throwing someone into Lava is tapping 3 aspects, not 1... ie, <Nearby Pool of Lava> <Lava is Hot> and <No, really. Ask a Geologist. Hot.>).

[sinker]

You know, in that case it might be easier to assign a weapon value instead of multiple aspects. Think of it like this: the player is invoking the aspect for effect to gain a weapon, that he uses on this attack. That does however, bring the initial question to bear, and I have no good answer to that, other than the book compares weapon:4 to a speeding semi.

[TheMouse]

Getting hit by a train, as has been mentioned above, isn't necessarily a stress-dealing attack.

I usually figure that normal attacks and the like don't do things like that. You can stab and shoot and bash and lots of other things, but you don't get to deal huge piles of stress just because there's a thing in sight that would splat someone.

Instead, the train is the result of an attack. That's right, stabbing a vampire made a train come into the station. Enough stress happened for either a Concession or Taken Out result, and someone said, "Hey, maybe the vampire gets hit by a train!"

Is it dead? Maybe. It really depends. If the GM's player (the GM, in other words) Conceded, probably not; it's probably just out of the fight for the remainder of the scene or even the rest of the night (depending on the specifics offered in the Concession). If it's Taken Out, it could very well be dead.

Now, is the Taken Out result death, or not? There're sensible arguments both ways.

The game world argument -- Subway trains that hit people more or less knock them literally to pieces. It's very believable that this would cause the necessary sort of injury -- decapitation, perhaps -- to end a vampire.

The game system argument -- The train is 100% narrative spray paint on the fact that the vampire was Taken Out with an attack. It took sufficient damage to remove it from the conflict, and the player thought it'd be cool to stuff it under a moving train. The only thing that matters is the actual attack.

Both arguments are valid, and it totally depends on your group to determine which one is more important to you.

Now, a train could possibly be part of an attack roll, in the same way that a truck could be. In this case, the train gets a weapon rating. And you have to remember that, "Getting hit," and, "Getting nailed dead on and sucked underneath," are two different things. The latter would be the result of a particularly damaging hit. You can get hit in the arm with a fast moving train, in the same way that you can get shot in the hand or the foot with a high powered rifle.

In typical Fate fashion, there are lots of ways to do one thing. The right answer is very situational, so use your judgment.

[ways and means]

The train was the result of a compel for effect of the tube station, speeding train, pushed on the tracks and blocked escape aspects, so I was wondering if I should treat it as a compel to a consession with apropriate concequences or if I should stat out the train as an effect.

[sinker]

If it's just a terminology mix up and I'm totally overreacting tell me, but technically that's not how compels work. Firstly a compel may not dictate a course of action. They may narrow options, or make things more difficult, but they do not say "This is the result". Death is an attempt to dictate the action.

Furthermore it's a really weak compel. "I compel you to die" is just terrible.

Lastly you don't really "Compel for effect" because that's all a compel ever does.

[devonapple]

Cars get a weapon effect by the rules, so giving a similar one to a train can make some sense. But a GM could rule that the weapon impact of a car is predicated upon the driver attempting to use it as a weapon (running down an opponent) rather than as an environmental hazard (getting thrown into traffic). However, the train-as-hazard thing seems like another flavor of using the environment to gain a vastly superior numerical effect (like the falling rules).

As the RAW state, a GM is discouraged from allowing players to take advantage of things like cliffs, rooftops, etc. in order to add falling damage to an attack. Your attack is the amount of stress *you* deal, and if falling happens during the attack, it can be added into the narrative outcome, but the stress you deal with your attack is not bolstered any more than the +2 you get for tagging an Aspect. Stress which, as many have noted, may not even result in Consequences reflecting actual damage.

So, I'd flavor the train carrying the Blampire away as a narrative exposition about the Concession or Taken Out result the players have accomplished through their rolls, Declarations, Maneuvers, etc.

But if it is more fun to call a train Weapon:7-10, then feel free to do so!

You might consider opting to make it a separate transaction from any player attacks, though I would perhaps allow certain of the players' Declarations/Maneuvers/etc. to be tagged for a bonus to the train's "attack roll."

[ways and means]

You can use your tag of an aspect you created to create an effect and when that effect has significant negative results on an opponent compel mechanics come in. So my players tagged the four appropriate aspect to create the effect BCV hit by train, now as a GM I could either stat said train as an environmental attack and roll it or I could consider being hit by a train to mean an concession which takes said BCV out of the fight with certain consequences which as the GM I would be inspired to compel because of the train effect.

The raw does discourage players using environmental features such as height to their advantage but it doesn't prohibit it, it mentions giving said target plenty of opportunities to avoid said situation when it happens. Personally I like interesting use of environments and tags for effect so I am pretty lenient on the issue, I will let people maneuver Villains of cliffs  because if they matter they will be able to grab onto something before falling damage happens.