I've got a player playing as a White court Vampire, and with the template they have a feeding dependency. Let's assume that he ends up going for a while and not feeding and his stress track goes over the limit, what happens then? For this particular instance he feeds on fear.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, that's unclear! I'm looking at that whole section right now and I could interpret it either way. I'm leaning toward your latest interpretation, but if that's the intent it really ought to have been made clearer that it's a special effect of taking hunger stress. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 15, 2012 at 19:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ Time to report the "bug" to the authors of the game? \$\endgroup\$ Jul 16, 2012 at 6:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'd tend towards the have to rather than tracking it as normal, b/c stress goes away after the end of the scene. But I see why it could be interpreted otherwise. Let's see what Fred thinks :) \$\endgroup\$
    – Chuck Dee
    Jul 16, 2012 at 15:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ @wraith808 - Yeah, but I think there's another section that says something like "You don't clear your stress track like the other tracks", so that's not a factor. \$\endgroup\$
    – Cthos
    Jul 17, 2012 at 0:13

2 Answers 2


The hunger stress track is a bit different from other stress tracks. Other stress tracks overflow as a result of an enemies' actions. The hunger stress track is only checked in general as the result of a feeding failure (see YS190), which only happens at the end of a scene. As such, first, the feeding failure would result in losing powers and abilities equal to the amount of stress that would be taken over the stress track.

From YS190:

If you cannot or do not wish to spare consequences, then you must lose access to a number of your powers, up to a refresh cost equal to the amount of stress taken.

Only if you have no powers left to lose are you taken out by a feeding failure. In that case, your failure is dictated by the game master, not an opponent. The only case when your opponent would get a chance to dictate your fate would be when the feeding failure was brought on as the result of a compel.

YS190 is a good resource for rules on the differences between the hunger stress track and other stress tracks.

NOTE: If an opponent does compel a check for feeding failure and you succeed, you immediately clear out your hunger stress track, just as if it was a check between scenes.

More references for the answer:

From Fred Hicks on Twitter.

Bolded section is what you do instead of taken out. Any stress not soaked by the track or consequences = points of power lost.

From a separate e-mail thread asking this same thing, I got this further response:

But I mean in the case that you have no more powers to shut off. Does nothing happen? Or do you get "taken out", i.e. lose control completely or something appropriate to the narrative?

That's left up to the individual table, specifically the GM as the "attacker".

So the progression from this interpretation is

  1. Take stress.
  2. Take Consequences
  3. Lose Powers
  4. Taken out

(Posting this as asked by Fred)

  • \$\begingroup\$ Where does it say that your failure is dictated by the GM and not an opponent? (unless of course the GM is the opponent) \$\endgroup\$
    – edgerunner
    Dec 5, 2011 at 7:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ @edgerunner - let me turn the question back to you- who is your opponent? \$\endgroup\$
    – Chuck Dee
    Dec 5, 2011 at 7:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, GM most of the time, but you occasionally get a different opponent, usually as the result of a related compel. What I'm saying is there is no explicit assignment of the GM as the arbiter of fate in such cases. The GM just happens to be the opponent most of the time but not all. \$\endgroup\$
    – edgerunner
    Dec 5, 2011 at 8:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ @edgerunner - which is why I turned that back on you, as this case was explicitly covered in the answer. I never said that it couldn't be an opponent, just that this would only happen in the case of a compel, which was why I didn't get why the question was even asked? \$\endgroup\$
    – Chuck Dee
    Dec 5, 2011 at 8:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ :D Somehow I skipped that in your answer. Never mind. \$\endgroup\$
    – edgerunner
    Dec 5, 2011 at 8:29

There is a simple definition of being taken out (ie. running past a stress track) on all FATE 3.0 games. The player loses control of the character, and the character's fate is in the hands of any opponent(s) (YS 203). The character may or may not be able to return to the game depending on whatever the said opponent decrees within reasonable bounds.

With a White Court vampire, being taken out on the hunger track probably translates to something like passing out, freaking out, going into a feeding frenzy or doing something stupid, even maybe something suicidally stupid. You have lost control and your fate is in the hands of others.

If you have no powers left to lose and are taken out by a feeding failure, you are actually taken out (resulting in complete incapacitation, extreme emaciation, and other nasty fates) — YS 190

"Other nasty fates” like becoming a mindless monster driven only by hunger. It's ugly. — Harry Dresden

Being taken out is a serious thing, treat it as instant death because it may well become one if your opponent offers a reasonable story for that. Remember that you can always offer a concession (YS 206).


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .