In my personal experience, a lot of the coolest at-the-table gaming moments for me and my various groups have been when we've rolled the dice and either come up with an incredible success because of it (amazed looks on everyones' faces at the huge number of successes) or succeeded with a catch that had to be resolved later (sometimes cringe-worthy but hey, overcoming the challenges can be as memorable as amazing, seemingly-effortless success).

I don't like to be in the position of thinking "so why did I spend all that XP on N, when the GM just lets us get away with resolving all or most N-related tasks narratively, without involving the mechanics I chose to buy in to?"

Hey guys, I've been reading but I wanted to hear people's opinions and let you guys sort of come to a consensus, because it's interesting (to me as an un-involved player) to see how everyone else would handle the situation. Glad my GM found the thread and chimed in with his side (: I agree with everyone that the mechanics have a place over narration, and when you achieve those awesome rolls is when you get to do awesome things.

Assassin's creed style thing was my words not his btw, I was using it as a quick way to reference what I thought the player was trying to do and paint the picture in few words, not necessarily like "I WANT TO BE A TRAINED KILLER!!". The player wasn't frustrated in how difficult it may or may not, but he just felt the outcome was trivial for the setup he put into it.

So to play some devil's advocate -- from an entirely mechanical standpoint -- since we can sit here and think about special situations (like the sniping, which is awesome by the way and very fitting for the book on real warfare), I think there could be more to this. If the consensus is that you'd simply do a combat roll (and maybe double boost die for two aims), how would this be any different mechanically than a normal run up and knife them check? I think there's an entirely different set of skills involved with coming up behind someone and (hopefully) knifing them, vs hand to hand combat with a knife. While yes, someone who is well versed with a knife can probably pull an assassination like that, I would think there's a bigger emphasis on setup to your advantageous position, and because you're in that position the act becomes easier (because you have greater access to the neck, because the target is unaware, because you are planning while he is reacting etc). I just don't know what the "new check" could be. And if I'm talking purely "min maxing" here, considering the other steps that would be involved in the whole maneuver (stealth checks to come up behind them, maybe coordination checks to get into place, etc etc) vs a single turn where you move to engaged, (strain to aim), action to attack. I think there is some reward if the player can get through some pre-defined obstacles, otherwise why would you bother going through all those motions when the outcome is the same?

I almost feel like there should be a check based off your knife skill/stealth/something else (I liked an intelligence roll for different races!), and failing that (which would be quite difficult, I'd imagine), you'd just do separate combat. Or, an upgraded die to facilitate those extra adv/triumphs. I know we're not giving the player something just because they say they want to do it, but if the player says "hey, I want to try and jump a guy while he's distracted during the fight and take my knife to the jugular", it would be cool to say "yeah awesome, here's what you need to succeed at" rather than "nah, just make a combat check and if you come out successful you can say you did that". If there were steps involved (especially if the odds are stacked against them), there's plenty of cool opportunities for more story to unfold too so it's win-win.

That sounds like a bit of mechanical overcomplication to me.

That sounds like a bit of mechanical overcomplication to me.

Agreed, it's just one of innumerable scenarios that would then have to be fleshed out to do them equal justice.

if the player says "hey, I want to try and jump a guy while he's distracted during the fight and take my knife to the jugular", it would be cool to say "yeah awesome, here's what you need to succeed at" rather than "nah, just make a combat check and if you come out successful you can say you did that".

Well, to be fair, that's kinda how the system was designed. You roll the dice, then interpret the outcome. Besides "I want to jump the guy and stab him with my knife" is like the very definition of a combat check. (what you describe really sounds more like the Exalted stunt system: describe your action in a cool way and get a bonus die. I suppose that could work for EotE too.)

But this is really where the system shines, IMHO, because it gives the GM a lot of room to allow special maneuvers within the confines of the mechanics. Say, a player says "okay, I want to sneak up on the lone guardsman and try to subdue him quietly." To which the GM might decide to say something like "Okay, cool. First give me a stealth check to sneak up on the guy, then a brawl check to grapple him. Two advantages on the latter roll will let you keep him from calling out for a round." Doing well on the stealth roll might give boost dice to the brawl check, which increases your chances of getting those advantages.

Of course, you could also let the player accomplish all that based on a single stealth check, but personally I feel that if you allow skills to be used too broadly, it kinda hurts in the long run (since lateral advancement is a major part of the game's advancement system).

Combat rules assume the defender is more or less aware of the attack and can somewhat defend themselves. Other games often treat the assassin kill as a coup de grâce. Are there coup de grâce rules in EotE?

If not, how about this for a coup de grâce houserule? Make a normal combat check. If you hit, treat it as a critical hit. Each success does extra damage (as normal) and adds +10 to the critical roll. The player can also purchase extra +10 critical hits with advantages, as normal.

Combat rules assume the defender is more or less aware of the attack and can somewhat defend themselves.

I don't think I've seen differentiation between aware vs non-aware opponents in the RAW. Where do you see this?

I don't believe there are coup de grace rules. There is a narrative rule of "players don't die immediately when knocked unconscious if their WT is exceeded unless the GM thinks it's appropriate."

Really to be quite honest, I hate hate hate little specific spot rules for random game occasions. Nobody remembers them, it interrupts the game to look them up, and they come up constantly in other systems. I prefer to let the "preparation" rolls like Stealth add Boosts or maybe an Upgrade to the resolution roll (i.e. combat). If you're a Stealth god but only fair at melee, your Stealth roll could easily generate a ton of good die results to boost that melee roll with bonuses and upgrades. It's quick, clean and most importantly uses the existing rules framework.

There is somewhere (I'm AFB) a comment on the static defences, that if (and I'm paraphrasing): "the target for some reason cannot or is not actively defending him or herself, the GM can lower the difficulty". It's vague in the book too.