Maneuvers Help

[Sammael]

Hi. new GM here.

I have read the book YS 5/6 times and I canīt precisely wrap my head around a few things, though I think I get the basics.

For maneuvers the add a factor which you can tag for a +2, that I get. But Iīm wondering how I should apply the "disarmed" aspect on a gunman. If he canīt reach his gun, he canīt attack right?. But as I understand it the aspect only gives a +2 modifier, unless compelled by players or GM.
So if a player wants to "disarm" someone for sure. . .how do I correctly model it?

I guess if the maneuver goes through by Compel or roll I make it a Contest to find the gun/sword again?/remove the aspect. Unless the aspect crumbles on itīs own?
Iīm also confused with Fire Hazards, HWWB Zone of Silence and Indirect attacks. For example, a guy lobs a grenade to collapse the cave roof over the heroes. The roll gets decided by throwing, but how do i deal with the damage from the tonnes of rocks?

Itīs mainly that I donīt really get how to GM aspects for effect, apart from compels and they can always be resisted.

[Sanctaphrax]

But Iīm wondering how I should apply the "disarmed" aspect on a gunman. If he canīt reach his gun, he canīt attack right?. But as I understand it the aspect only gives a +2 modifier, unless compelled by players or GM.
So if a player wants to "disarm" someone for sure. . .how do I correctly model it?

Have your player use his tag to Invoke For Effect. The guy loses his weapon rating and has to attack with a skill other than Guns, unless of course he has another gun.

Even if they don't use their tag like that, the guy is still disarmed. His weapon isn't in his hand. Aspects are always true. But they don't do anything, mechanically, unless Invoked or Compelled. So maybe you, as the GM, come up with some excuse for the gunman to keep attacking after being disarmed.

Probably easier just to Compel the guy, though.

Iīm also confused with Fire Hazards, HWWB Zone of Silence and Indirect attacks.

What do you find confusing about fire and HHWB?

For example, a guy lobs a grenade to collapse the cave roof over the heroes. The roll gets decided by throwing, but how do i deal with the damage from the tonnes of rocks?

It's an attack like any other. Mechanically, making rocks fall on someone isn't any different from throwing a grenade at them.

Itīs mainly that I donīt really get how to GM aspects for effect, apart from compels and they can always be resisted.

There aren't really any rules that limit invoking for effect. It's all up to the GM and their discretion.

You spend a Fate Point or a tag, something happens.

And that's it.

[Taran]

Disarm:

As a gm i usually ask the player if they want to invoke.  If the aspect is fragile, the weapon is lost for one exchange and then requires a supplemental to pick up (assuming the player invoked) if they didn't invoke then i narrate it as if the guy has a flimsey hold on his weapon.

If the aspect is sticky and the players invoked (making the gm compel the npc to drop the weapon - which the npc can refuse by spending a fp).  In this case, the npc should make a counter-maneuver to get his weapon. Assuming the pcs keep the pressure on.  If they don't, i'd allow the npc to pick it up as a supplemental.

For maneuvers that may have secondary effects, i look at how powerful the maneuver is.  Especially for spells.  For example a 5 shift "earth tremor" spell won't be nearly as destructive as a 10 shift spell.  Look at the "breaking things" chart in the book to see how powerful maneuvers can be.

You shouldn't always screw over your players because shifts of success should be a benefit to the player.  At the same time, I tend to get creative when players are using over-kill.  Aspects are often a double-edged sword.

hwwb?

[Mr. Death]

Have your player use his tag to Invoke For Effect. The guy loses his weapon rating and has to attack with a skill other than Guns, unless of course he has another gun.

That or you, as GM, just compel the guy directly. If he's a goon, it won't matter a whole lot whether or not he gets a fate point.

Even if they don't use their tag like that, the guy is still disarmed. His weapon isn't in his hand. Aspects are always true. But they don't do anything, mechanically, unless Invoked or Compelled. So maybe you, as the GM, come up with some excuse for the gunman to keep attacking after being disarmed.

Like having a back-up gun, for instance.

[Sammael]

Have your player use his tag to Invoke For Effect. The guy loses his weapon rating and has to attack with a skill other than Guns, unless of course he has another gun.

Even if they don't use their tag like that, the guy is still disarmed. His weapon isn't in his hand. Aspects are always true. But they don't do anything, mechanically, unless Invoked or Compelled. So maybe you, as the GM, come up with some excuse for the gunman to keep attacking after being disarmed.

Probably easier just to Compel the guy, though.

What do you find confusing about fire and HHWB?

It's an attack like any other. Mechanically, making rocks fall on someone isn't any different from throwing a grenade at them.

There aren't really any rules that limit invoking for effect. It's all up to the GM and their discretion.

You spend a Fate Point or a tag, something happens.

And that's it.

Thx!.
Itīs in the examples Iīve heard of a "burning house" aspect can be used to give all the players in the affected zones a contest roll, until the aspect goes away. Iīm abit iffy on how it i Done. I get that the GM can "Make it so", iīm just trying to find my grounding, the rules and whatnot.
Similarly if He Who Walks Behind makes his "zone of Silence" attack and Literally takes away all sound, how is it resisted (If the players spend FP). I guess the roll can be weak, or I make something up as to why it doesenīt go off.

So mainly, for the Fire, I can go "As long as "building on fire, not your fault"  is active Iīm calling for a contest roll" and then take it from there?

For the rocks Iīm trying to fit it into my head:
Mook with grenade makes a Maneuver which he tags if successful/Declare with a roll/FP. The roll is made with might+ weapon rating or explosive-related stat+ aspect bonus to represent the crushing weight of the rocks. All in all somewhere in the 10-12/ or just 8-12, because "Rocks Are Heavy" TM, which I could compell.

[Taran]

re: Fire

You don't necessarily need to have them roll against the environment.   Doing this could give the scene more urgency to a scene but sometimes it bogs things down.  Instead, you could use the aspect to compel them to do other things.

"you want to leave because the police are coming, but you don't want to leave innocent people in a burning building" (although, that may be more related to one of their aspects)

"you can't go back out the front door because it's blocked with fire"

"one of the enemies escapes because your view of them is obscured by smoke"

These are all compels using the "building on fire" aspect.

Silence:
You just compel the aspect when it's important.

He who walks behind puts up silence.  It's a fact.  Certain things are a given:  gun-fire won't be heard therefore other people are not likely to come and investigate etc... You should only compel it when it complicates something.

- If the PC's are trying to over-hear people talk about their evil plan, you compel them to not hear the plan (which leaves them in the dark and makes things harder for them).  If they turn it down, you can allow them to roll (although, the evil-doers probably won't be able to hear each other talk, so turning down the compel allows the PC's to read gestures/lips)

- The PC's are doing maneuvers that require speech (maybe even spellcasting).  Compel them to say those actions don't work.  If they turn it down, you can, if you want, still increase the difficulty but say they do it using gestures.

-Penalize an alertness roll or automatically fail one to be ambushed.

When the silence really Matters that's when you compel.  Those are just examples off the top of my head and, maybe, not great ones. 

[Sammael]

re: Fire

You don't necessarily need to have them roll against the environment.   Doing this could give the scene more urgency to a scene but sometimes it bogs things down.  Instead, you could use the aspect to compel them to do other things.

"you want to leave because the police are coming, but you don't want to leave innocent people in a burning building" (although, that may be more related to one of their aspects)

"you can't go back out the front door because it's blocked with fire"

"one of the enemies escapes because your view of them is obscured by smoke"

These are all compels using the "building on fire" aspect.

Silence:
You just compel the aspect when it's important.

He who walks behind puts up silence.  It's a fact.  Certain things are a given:  gun-fire won't be heard therefore other people are not likely to come and investigate etc... You should only compel it when it complicates something.

- If the PC's are trying to over-hear people talk about their evil plan, you compel them to not hear the plan (which leaves them in the dark and makes things harder for them).  If they turn it down, you can allow them to roll (although, the evil-doers probably won't be able to hear each other talk, so turning down the compel allows the PC's to read gestures/lips)

- The PC's are doing maneuvers that require speech (maybe even spellcasting).  Compel them to say those actions don't work.  If they turn it down, you can, if you want, still increase the difficulty but say they do it using gestures.

-Penalize an alertness roll or automatically fail one to be ambushed.

When the silence really Matters that's when you compel.  Those are just examples off the top of my head and, maybe, not great ones.

Thx for the help.
So if a compell "fail", I.E gets bought out, I can increase the difficulty. I am going to re-read HWWB in Our World again but Iīm going to guess that if He success he Declares the Fact or sets up a Block.If all my players buy out I can still increase the roll to a unproboable difficulty.

[Taran]

I wouldn't do that.  If it's improbable/impossible, then don't offer a compel. When I said increase difficulty, I meant a +1 or +2.  It's not really fair to make them spend a FP for nothing.   Another option is to have them use a separate skill.  If they can't hear, then they need to read lips and gestures...forcing them to use Empathy instead.

Probably the silence would, as you proposed, work better as a block vs Alertness.

Making a VERY powerful maneuver just means that it would be impossible for them to remove the aspect (if they want to overcome the maneuver difficulty) - it doesn't mean they can't succeed on certain actions impeded by the maneuver.  Let them get creative.

[toturi]

Making a VERY powerful maneuver just means that it would be impossible for them to remove the aspect (if they want to overcome the maneuver difficulty) - it doesn't mean they can't succeed on certain actions impeded by the maneuver.  Let them get creative.

Any examples? Isn't the point of the very powerful maneuver that they can't succeed on those certain actions?

[Taran]

Any examples? Isn't the point of the very powerful maneuver that they can't succeed on those certain actions?

Depends on the maneuver.

Using the "silence" maneuver, for example:

HWWB puts up a 15-shift "silence" scene aspect

Nobody is going to be able to build up enough shifts to beat that unless they do a ritual.  The maneuver is going to last the whole scene.

The actions the maneuver is designed to impede may or may not succeed.  So they can't talk but it doesn't mean they can't communicate.  It's going to constantly cause problems for people on the scene leading to, probably, multiple compels that they can buy off with proper justification.

Remember that a compel is a negotiated.
"you can't hear so you're ambushed"
I pay that compel off and roll alertness.  I can still see.
Fair enough.  But you can't warn anyone if you succeed.
I can.  I wave my hands and point in the direction of the ambush
Fine, but the enemy knows you're aware and gets to attack first
agreed

On the other hand, a 15 shift "disarm" attempt is going to succeed.  Maybe the GM compels the target saying his weapon is broken.  Or maybe it went flying up on top of a building - essentially putting it out of reach for the scene.

If he pays off the compel, he's simply saying, "I still have my weapon of choice".  The maneuver exists.  I might adjudicate is as a the weapon having some kind of dent/bend or damage allowing people to tag the existing maneuver (since it's sticky).  Since it's sticky, even though the victim paid off one compel, it doesn't prevent others from paying a FP to gain a +2 advantage OR instigate another compel, forcing the victim to choose between his weapon or a FP. "it's so twisted, it falls from your grasp"

In both cases, it's not completely preventing an action (since they're buying off compels) but it's creating on-going complicating.

Hopefully those are good examples...