The narrative might say "dead; just dead".

But the narrative might also say "inexplicably, a distraction almost always works in this situation."

And most anything in-between.

Or tangential, like the character having the ability to call in an ally to whom the would-be shooter will listen or whatever other intervention is genre and story appropriate.

It really comes down to the genre I'm emulating.

But if you're in this situation, you can expect to come out pretty messed up most of the time.

The trick is, if this was a conflict, the narrative doesn't come to this until the character on the business end of that gun gets taken out.

In many games the mechanics state that this would insta kill or do massive damage

I agree with +Mert Torun , this is the consequence rather than the cause of conflict mechanics. The important rolls you care about are the ones that led to this situation.

Sounds like an insta-kill to me. Stress/consequences only come into play when the dice are rolled. In this case, there are no dice rolls because there is no chance of failure.

That being said, what happened in the story to get the character where they are? Was it from a concession? Did the gunman get the drop on the target?

+Jack Gulick:  That's why I tried my damnedest to explicitly scope things like "unexpected interruptions, allies showing up, etc" doesn't occur.  Gun to head.  No dodging, no distractions.  Trigger is pulled.

+Mert Torun:  Agreed.  This situation can't happen within the context of a Conflict.  Even if the victim is Taken Out, the other parties involved could certainly interfere.

+Jacob Possin:  Perhaps.  I'm asking how you'd rule it ;)

With that in mind, +Robert Hanz, as River says, "bullet in the brain pan SQUISH!"

Granted, there are stories of people being shot in the head an not even knowing it, so it doesn't have to be a kill. Most people shot in the head, however, die from it. Simple.

FWIW, I agree with +Christopher Ruthenbeck.  Stress/Consequences don't come into play.  In the scenario as described, dead is dead.

I consider this to be a fallout from "fiction first".  Fidelity with what's happening in the fictional situation requires that characters that get shot in the head die.  There's no real question as to what happens, so no mechanics get involved - there's nothing to resolve.

I think my point is that there are some genre (many genre) where the situation you posit isn't possible.  Sure, people die in heroic bloodshead melodrama, but they don't go out like a punk unless they really earned it (or have something plotwise to gain by their sacrifice).  The number of outs that exist are countless.

And, honestly, most GM's can think of something far worse than a bullet to the head and a quick death to do to a character.  A life-debt to their most hated enemy, for example.

I think this would fall under all the rules in Fate about how "If it's not going to fail, don't bother rolling".

I also love the "Bullet in the brain pan, squish" analogy.

+Jack Gulick:  Sure. And if you could never get in the situation at all, clearly it would never happen ;)

I also never specified that the victim was a PC.  I deliberately left that vague.  I'm also not arguing that it's an awesome thing, or that it should happen, or that other types of consequences aren't more interesting.  The scope of the question is very simply "given this scenario, how would you adjudicate it?"

How you would avoid that situation, or whether it's appropriate, or any of the other issues surrounding it are very valid questions, but they're just a bit out of scope.  And for the record, I tend to agree with you - I doubt this particular situation would ever come up in a game I ran.  Your points are very valid to the broader scope, but I'm explicitly asking about the very narrow one.

The essence of the question, really, is "given a situation where the result is narratively obvious, do you engage the rules?  Even if the rules engaged or not are those dealing with 'injury/harm'?"

While my instinct would be bang, dead... the simple fact is that to many players character death completely destroys the fun that they're having in a game. If my player was okay with their character becoming a fun memory to discuss around the table, then I would certainly rule that the character is toast... no dice rolled. If the player really feels strongly that they would not want to play any other character, I would likely rule it an instant Severe Consequence, character taken out... no roll, and narrate that the bullet didn't kill them, but severe trauma changed who they are to some extent.

While I agree that the fiction must come first... there are enough real life stories of someone taking a bullet to the head and surviving to make it a possibility that the character would survive it too. IMO character death should only be on the table when the player is okay with it... otherwise there's always another option that can keep the story come first, and still keep the game fun for everyone.

If we're making a "realism" argument, then I'll have to point out that in real life there's been at least one case where a bullet to the head resulted in the bullet sliding around the outside of the skull and exciting out the front. Reality itself can be fairly unrealistic.

In short, no. The rules exist where the outcome is not narratively obvious.

I think +Bill Garrett has the core here.  If the result is narratively obvious (whichever way that is), then that's what happens.  The rules are for situations where there is doubt (at the 1-in-6561 or more level... that is, where 8dF can discern).

This is, to my mind, not such a situation once all the conditions are accepted.  Odds of survival are less than that.

Unless there's something we don't know (which the conditions say there isn't)...

Again, to be clear, in an actual game it's unlikely the PCs will find themselves in this situation.  If they do, it will be the culmination of a series of disasters (including attempts to get help).  In almost any case, I'll give a PC a minimum of a defense roll to try and roll out of the way, etc.

The 'gun to the center of the forehead, no dodging'  was intended to get rid of the weird deflections, etc.  If it makes anyone feel better, feel free to substitute 'gun and bullet' for any sufficiently lethal situation.  A guillotine (in good working condition) may be a good one.

In any game I ran, I think for either an NPC or a PC this situation itself would be the result of being taken out. It wouldn't be "Athletics Roll, you're dropped to your knees and have a gun to your head" out of the blue.

Plus, if it's an NPC on the receiving end, you want to give your PCs a chance to do an "And shepherds we shall be" speech.

+Robert Hanz, strictly speaking, if the outcome of a situation is certain based on the narrative, then my answer is "no", I would not look to rules or dice to determine the outcome. I would simply go along with the narrative. In my mind, this is very similar to the guidelines of "if there is nothing interesting that can happen based on failure and success, don't roll dice" (paraphrasing). There is no point rolling to see how well a guillotine attacks a character... if the character's head is in the guillotine, and the blade drops, that's all she wrote. Sneak up on a sleeping sentry and slit a throat, don't roll the attack. It's about the same as trying to open an unlocked, unblocked, unstuck, un-trapped door. The outcome is obvious, and if there's no interesting result for success AND fail, then there's no real point in wasting the time to roll.

All that said, I still maintain that PC's (and possibly key NPCs... possibly) should rarely be forced to accept death as the only answer. PC death is disruptive to the story, and to the players. I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be consequences... but PC death is rarely a positive thing. Of course, everyone's table is different, and if everyone knows that character mortality is a real risk then that's a different story. :)

"There is no chance of a miss.  There is no chance of the person dodging.  The angle of the shot is such that a deflection is impossible.  The 'victim' has no supernatural powers, armor, or anything else.  Any Compels will be refused, so no 'last minute backup' to save them."

This sounds like you have already decided, so what mechanics are there, other than describing the death, perhaps.

If the GM wants a different result, there are always ways out. The blade can get jammed in the track on a guillotine, cord can snap on a crossbow, the trigger pin can break on a gun. But these are all plot armor to be used to prevent the story from ending in an unsatisfying way, but even better is to make sure when you lead to this scenario that you have a plan for "and then..."
I would say that the situation of "gun to the head" is a narrative event, or an 8 to 10 point consequence. It comes from two things.
1) The person who literally controls the universe decided that situation was one that should happen. In this case, I would certainly hope that there was a plan for what happened after this.
or
2) Concession was not offered or taken, and this is the result of not compromising.
Either way, it is not a challenge, contest, or conflict. The time for mechanics and rulings is long past.

I've worked in traumatic brain injury rehabilitation facilities with people who had been shot in the head and survived. Of course, those people definitely had a very significant new aspect applied to their character sheets.

And remember fate core doesn't replicate life, it replicates fiction. If you an npc dead, they're dead. For pcs, look at Kill Bill. If the character didn't survive a bullet to the brain, you wouldn't have a story.

I don't think the pseudo poll is useful because my answer would be too context dependent, even if I would ever see a situation like that arising at my table.

+Arlo Evans I agree. The entire jiggered context given is rather pointless - even as an exercise. By the narrative the answer is already determined. You have left no room for fiction except the one outcome. So, what is the point of allowing anything else to happen? If there is only one outcome there is no point in engaging any mechanics - it just happens. The game system used is completely independent of the straw man.

If it has already been decided and nothing short of the collapse of the known universe can stop it then it falls into the realm of the uninteresting. Let it happen as pre-determined and move on to the more interesting part of the fiction where the PCs can be active participants.

Fate characters are pro-active not deterministic. TBH, any role-playing characters should be that way - Fate just calls it out in the base rules.

Well, that's kind of the core of the question.  Some people will insist that if you shoot someone in the back of a head with a crossbow in D&D, that you still roll for damage.  Or if you try to chop off someone's head with a sword with them helpless, you still roll damage.  Etc.

So while it seems kind of pointless to you (and I'd handle it the same way) it's not pointless to everyone.  I was kind of curious where Fate players/GMs fell on that spectrum.

Honestly, it depends on how we get to the situation where a gun is put to someone's head. If you mean, would I let someone roll really well on Stealth and then auto-kill someone, then probably not. Unless it's a poor nameless minion, in case why are we wasting the time making a big production of it? Or it could be the end result of a long contest where someone completely refuses to take concessions, in which case that's what the player or referee wanted. Context means everything- give me the context, and I'll give you my ruling.

Another idea I just had about this situation is that it can also turn into an "If you strike me down, I will only become more powerful" moment. Depending on the character, and the narrative, perhaps this character's death might have huge ripples through the story world.