Expanded Universe - so dubious as evidence - but:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Mandalorian_disintegrator

That's just a specific brand of disruptor pistol.

I am not sure if Bader is referring to a preference for Disruptors or to some other bit of kit, but it certainly makes Boba Fett more to be feared doesn't it.

Although I do wonder, as a Bounty Hunter, not a Hit Man how does he get paid if the target is disintegrated thus destroying the body?

I think it is most likely a reference to a preference for Disruptors as we haven't seen other "disintegrators", although wasn't there a reference to Jabba having a protocol droid who displeased him disintegrated?

I kind of wonder if Vader's comment was shorthand for "I want them in one piece and breathing, not dismembered gore sacks."

In universe, Fett has since garnered a reputation for being extremely efficient, and in the past has probably decided that getting less credits for bring in the target dead if hauling them in alive would prove to be too much hassle, particularly early in his bounty hunting career.

As for claiming the bounty, if there's enough eyewitnesses who saw Fett do the deed, only an utter fool is going to try and withhold the payment to one of the galaxy's most feared bounty hunters. And I'm sure there were some who tried, and wound up paying for their foolishness.

All those Bounty Hunters and Darth Vader seemed to link up with Boba Fett fairly easily. Boba Fett was even able to assert himself a little bit and Vader didn't choke him... even promised to compensate him (although, considering how Vader's other promises were going right about then, I wonder how honest he was being). Has there ever been some connection between them revealed?

My brother says that he thinks Anakin might have remembered meeting the young boy Boba Fett. Vader might have actually felt something for a kid who lost his father to the Jedi seeing as Vader was a father who had his own kid taken away by them, as well?

He probably also remembered Jango Fett, the renown bounty hunter whose genetic template was used for the entire Clone Trooper line. That armour is pretty distinctive too, as well as them using the same ship and being in the same profession, so it'd be fairly obvious to Vader that Boba was Jango's son.

Plus, going by the EU, Vader and Fett have tangled in the past, and Vader's not one to toss aside a useful and competent resource like a bounty hunter that can actually survive going toe-to-toe with a Sith Lord. Plus there's the fact that Fett did exactly what Vader asked, so for all we know that promise of compensation might have been legitimate. Changing the terms of the bargain with Lando was no big deal to Vader, as he likely made that bargain in bad faith to begin with and fully intending to seize Cloud City and it's Tibanna manufacturing efforts for the Empire.

Plus, going by the EU, Vader and Fett have tangled in the past, and Vader's not one to toss aside a useful and competent resource like a bounty hunter that can actually survive going toe-to-toe with a Sith Lord.

So Boba Fett went to kill Darth Vader? That's the connection I was looking for!!

Was there a bounty? Vader didn't toss aside Boba Fett but how'd Boba Fett decide not to kill Vader?

Where and when did Bader and Fett go toe to toe? I'd like to read that.

I could definitely see Fett being ruthless enough to opt for the expediency of disintegrating targets.it would add to his fearsome reputation and certainly help improve his standing with Grand Moff Tarkin.

Two fascinating things about Boba Fett, 1) Lucas considered him a bit part character, intended him to die in the Sarlac and has always been surprised at how popular Fett is with fans. 2) Boba Fett has been the Star Wars character with the most merchandise per second of screen time.

Two fascinating things about Boba Fett, 1) Lucas considered him a bit part character, intended him to die in the Sarlac and has always been surprised at how popular Fett is with fans. 2) Boba Fett has been the Star Wars character with the most merchandise per second of screen time.

I don't know how fascinating this will be but there are only a few scenes from the Star Wars movies that I can vividly remember, images and all. Boba Fett is in several of them. There are some characters that are a lot more important, like Lando Calrissian or Qui Gon Jinn that I don't remember at all.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I realize that the less human the character looked, the more I remember them... I think. So Darth Vader, Jar Jar Binks, Palpatine, Ewoks... they're all pretty clear in my head... so maybe it isn't so fantastic that I can remember Boba Fett.

Oh well....

Jar Jar Binks, the Star Wars equivalent of a photobomb!

Where and when did Bader and Fett go toe to toe? I'd like to read that.

It was in a comic mini-series called "Boba Fett: Enemy of the Empire" if I remember correctly. Been a long time since I read it, but as I recall the only reason that Vader didn't just squash Fett outright was amusement that Boba dared to come at the Dark Lord with a lightsaber (a good portion of the EU has built up that Vader was always hungry for a challenge, and was almost giddy at how much raw talent Luke had during their duel on Bespin and probably a substantial degree of parental pride at how far the boy had progressed during their next duel) and that Vader was more interested in the macguffin of the story (the disembodied head of an alien woman that could foresee the future with great clarity).

At the start of a final battle for the session one of the players pulls out a Thermal detonator and demarns the NPS to give up the dice are stacked agenst him and if he does win the roll I'm ready to limit the effect.

But the player rolls TWO TRIUMPHS! I dont realy have any option but to say ok you win every one gives up. (This was said with as much flare as possable)

This seemed rather anti climatic. Did I have any other options?

At the start of a final battle for the session one of the players pulls out a Thermal detonator and demarns the NPS to give up the dice are stacked agenst him and if he does win the roll I'm ready to limit the effect.

But the player rolls TWO TRIUMPHS! I dont realy have any option but to say ok you win every one gives up. (This was said with as much flare as possable)

This seemed rather anti climatic. Did I have any other options?

Jabba and all his bff's surrendered when Leia pulled out a thermal detonator so this seems to be pretty fitting.

No reason the NPC's can't hold a grudge, though.

This seemed rather anti climatic. Did I have any other options?

Not at the time, but you definitely have some moving forward.

Most people aren't going to like it when you arm a thermal detonator right in their face, so there could be attempted retribution. Like Haley said, a grudge among some of them would be absolutely certain.

That said, there might have been someone in the crowd who was pleased by the display and could become a contact for them in the future when they're looking for work, or if they were searching for information, he might be willing to help them along... for a price.

Finally, with two triumphs, it's possible that word has spread among the underworld, boosting the group's reputation. That could come in the form of more work, getting paid better, or having NPCs who might have otherwise given the players a hard time when asking for information be a little more cooperative. If there was any threat (or even if there wasn't; no need for such a good roll to go unpunished) could be that, if a party member has a bounty, word gets back to a bounty hunter about them, and she puts two and two together.

That would result in the wetting of trousers, perhaps even a few taking a dump standing up. The smell. The humiliation. The player would have won that round... but suddenly there would be many, many, many more rounds of disgruntled people - with less control over their bowel movement now than before they met the PCs - coming after the PCs, for various styles of revenge. Be it maiming, killing, humiliation or whatever. Maiming and killing is boring, humiliating the PCs is a challenge to do properly, but doable, and very rewarding. Of course one must remember to humiliate each player within a short amount of time so not to let nick names get settled too well before it's the next player's turn for some humiliation. Be is laxatives, out manoeuvred, disarmed, disrobed (remember, Sunder can be used to remove/destroy armour to ) and so on. And of course, as always, give the players an opportunity to get back at these people either straight away, or at some later date. Of course, there should also be the potential for the avenging NPC to fail utterly, and to humiliate him/her/itself further... to create even more potentially good, exciting and entertaining roleplaying moments.

Not a fan of rolling well leading to players getting screwed over. Ideally, a multi-triumph success should impress people, not turn them against the players.

And potentially create nemeses in opponents they humiliate using, for instance, Scathing Tirade, or just a normal Coercion and Leadership test. Granted these could also provide allies and new resource, most definitely, but I see no problem in having random victims return with a grudge for some humiliation the players caused. In fact I'd be disappointed in a GM not creating consistency and repercussions for actions, however triumphant they may be. Either the humiliated party, his/her/its family, some employer or whatnot. Of course, it is very contextual, but a social check always have a dark side - for some involved party, whether directly or indirectly.

It's a triumph. I'd have people in the crowd decide that the players are more bad-arse so they want to work with them instead. Have people start hounding them with work offers or even do stuff in their name without asking. Turning triumph into "now all of these people are out to get you" doesn't sound like much of a triumph.

Not a fan of rolling well leading to players getting screwed over. Ideally, a multi-triumph success should impress people, not turn them against the players.

My thought was more along the lines of, "Most of these people won't want to mess with you now, whether they think you're badass or crazy." A few would hold a grudge. One or two would take it the extra mile.

I was just thinking of future plot hooks that could come out of such a roll. I don't believe in unambiguously good results, and I feel like a Triumph's warm fuzzy feelings only cover the roll and the immediate results, not the extended fallout. But you're right; attracting a bounty hunter would probably be a Despair result, rather than a Triumph.

I get that there are many ways an attempt to intimidate someone can play out, but shouldn’t the results of their Coercion check dictate which interpretation you should use?

For example:

Despair

They react badly. Very badly. Murderously badly.

Fail + Threat

“Who is this clown? Kill ’em.”

Bad and motivated to do serious harm.

Fail

Bad. They probably think less of you but things could be worse.

Fail + Advantage

“Oh, I’m going to miss you.” or “I’m going to kill you last.”

Not terribly bad, you may have even made the main guy laugh.

Success + Threat

Success, but a problematic one. Perhaps they do swear revenge. It’s certainly an iffy enough roll to generate multiple Setback dice in future interactions with this group (good or bad, as you’ve shown them up).

Success

You succeed, but as it’s through negative means, you suffer a Setback die in future positive interactions with this group.

Success + Advantage

“This bounty hunter is my kind of scum: fearless and inventive.”

You not only succeed, you get something positive out of it – like the respect of the people you’re trying to intimidate, perhaps?

Triumph

Everyone knows you’re the biggest badass in the room. They may see you as someone who they can make money off of through association (you seem so competent that you’ll succeed in your endeavours, so it’s safe for them to sell you gear or information).

Obviously this isn't a comprehensive list and I'm not saying there should be fixed "you must" rules for these kind of interactions. (And yeah, this list would be further complicated by Triumph+Fail or Despair of other iterations, but you get the idea.) On the other hand, penalising a character for being good at what they've spent time and effort (XP) to become good at seems odd. Frustrating even.

Just some food for thought.

I'd say it's fair to have those you threatened with a TD hold a grudge. However, the reputation of being badass should definitely have some benefits beyond the moment, getting you in places you wouldn't have otherwise been allowed, having people fear you and make easier future coercion checks (at least some of them), etc. It could also lead to complications, like people using your name without any real connection to you, perhaps for things you wouldn't want to be associated with.

Infamy can definitely be a double-edged sword. But like others said, triumphs (especially multiple) should generally give lots more good than bad, and should probably affect the world outside that specific encounter.

Infamy.. when you're so famous, you're InFamous!

Infamy.. when you're so famous, you're InFamous!

"You mean inflammable means flammable? Oy, what a country!"

Here's a related question: how do you keep track of your players' fame/infamy? A growing percentage chance that people will recognize them? Leave it up to a success or failure roll, or maybe have it as a possible reward with enough advantages? Pure story-driven purpose?