Today I’ve been thinking about Resistance, Stress and the reduction or avoidance of consequences. My question is, when a PC resists some kind of consequence, when do you allow the resistance to avoid the consequence vs. reducing its severity?
The quickstart guide leaves it up to the GM’s discretion, suggesting negation creates a game that is more cinematic and less deadly. Does anyone have any rules of thumb they use instead? Do you negate when the PC has a creative or effective method of resisting? Do you negate when the PCs are on the ropes and you’re showing mercy? Do you negate when a PC rolls very well to show how effortless the resistance was? Do you negate when the PC rolls poorly to show how hard the character worked to avoid the close call (and also to avoid piling harm on top of stress)? Do you never negate consequences when resisting? Conversely do you always negate consequences with resistance?
We’re currently in the middle of my group’s second score, and the engagement roll was (1, 1, 1), so it’s been going poorly. Coupled with some stress and harm left over from the previous score, it’s looking likely that the Chimney Sweeps may need retreat and lick their wounds. The dice can be harsh, and I know that blades is meant to be unforgiving at times, so there is nothing wrong with this outcome. However, I’m still considering potential options for a less gritty experience, and I’m curious what kind of games you guys run?
With the caveats that I always make the call on the fly, I negotiate it with the players, and I’ve only been truly comfortable handling resistance and consequences in the last 2-3 sessions:
If a consequence is light (moderate harm, a lost opportunity, a wedge on a countdown clock filling in), I will almost always let resistance mitigate it entirely.
If a consequence is heavy (worst harm, a permanently barred opportunity), I will almost always rule that resistance stages it down but doesn’t erase it.
I’m with John Perich on this.
As a general rule of thumb, I figure resistance is worth knocking 2 off the consequence tier. So, if I kill them outright, then they can resist down to a 2. If it’s serious at tier 3, it can go down to a 1. Anything less, they can generally avoid.
That is tempered by the fiction, of course. If I say a guy gets shot in the heart point blank (Tier 4 death!), but he knocks the gun aside, then I figure he can avoid all the consequence. If a character is in the basement when the bomb goes off, that’s likely a 4 reduced to a 2 with resistance.
Good answers! Talk to the players, follow the fiction. 🙂
But mainly talk to the players. Ask them what they think. Ask about how they’re resisting — what happens on screen. This often answers the question.
Also, don’t worry about “consistency.” You don’t need a blanket method. Do what’s appropriate this time. Build up a general style over time.
Two things I caution against: adjusting the range of possible outcomes after the roll, and fudging the outcome based on a sense of how the players are doing and the mood at the table.
Players should have at least a general sense of the consequences before the dice fall–if not the detailed outcomes, the scope. Moving that around means either encouraging them to be less cautious because you might let them off unexpectedly, and/or encouraging them to be more cautious because the situation could get abruptly worse than they anticipated.
In a game where the baseline is a connection between the players’ sensibilities and the fiction, adjusting outcomes based on the meta player situation destablizes the world. “The Red Sashes are tough because they’re highly trained, but if things are going poorly for us the gods may smile and let us win” is not what I want my players thinking.
Nor do I want them thinking “We are totally owning these Red Sashes, but we’re unlikely to get away with it because we’ve been fortunate too long and the universe will punish us.”
If the universe punishes them, let it come out in fair play. No need for the GM to nudge it along. Same with catching a break. That’s my style, anyway.
And of course that’s moderated by the rhythm of the session and personal taste and all that, but in general, players should be encouraged NOT to think of the GM as capricious and trying to fit heists to a Procrustean Table of fixed difficulty.
I usually have resistance bring the level of harm down only a single level. Maybe I’ll try defaulting to 2 levels and see how that feels (modulated as fictionally appropriate of course).
Another method to throw on the pile:
Rather than more severe consequences, you can threaten multiple ones, then resistance can eliminate the consequence of the player’s choosing.
“She stabs you and then leaps off the balcony. Level 2 harm and you lose the opportunity to stop her with fighting.”
“I’ll resist that by grappling her as she attacks. She can stab me, but she doesn’t get away.”
Great info. I had wondered about this myself. Jeremy Kear, you may be interested in this.