p26, GM Best Practices
Make the scoundrels awesome even in failure. Blame the circumstances—not the characters—when creating consequences or complications. Even a PC with zero rating in an action isn’t a bumbling fool. Here’s a trick for this: start your description of the failure with a cool move by the PC, followed by “but,” and the troublesome circumstance. You aim a fierce right hook at his chin, but he’s quicker than he looked! He ducks under the blow and wrestles you up against the wall.
I think the trick is spot on, but the example could be better. The fierceness of the punch is meant to convey how good the action is, but it still kind of looks like they borked it; they look slow or a poor shot. Arguably, the circumstances are the character is facing a faster opponent, which is legit, but also borderline close to the character isn’t competent at Skirmish.
When circumstances are to blame, the failure is because of something the character couldn’t have prevented on their current course of action. Perhaps the fighters are hit by bottles from the rowdy crowd making them slip or slow down, the map is stained or damaged making it difficult to read, there’s a hidden mechanism revealing the lock is more complicated to unlock.
This also gives a different way forward from the failure. Command to disperse the crowd, Tinker to restore the map, etc.
I think the fight example is okay – the PC can’t prevent the opponent from being faster than he or she is. Importantly, it establishes something in the fiction – that the opponent is faster, so just trying to pummel him won’t work (or is now desperate). This signals that the PC will have to adapt, change tactics, etc. to defeat the opponent.
When modelling failure, I think you need to be careful not to make the task seem futile or impossible – if so, why did the PC attempt the action in the first place? For example, narrating a lock picking failure as realising your lock picks are missing, or that the lock can only be opened with a ghost-infused key.
All I’m saying is I think there are better examples of blaming the circumstances. It’s fine in game to say the opponent is faster. However, as an example of blaming the circumstances, I don’t think it makes clear the difference between blaming the character’s incompetence versus blaming the circumstances. It’s too borderline.
Yeah, I see your point, Oliver. Personally, I don’t like to invent new circumstances to explain failure, though. The map doesn’t suddenly become stained because you rolled a 2.
What I’m trying to show in the example is how the intrinsic challenge of this circumstance resulted in failure, not something extra suddenly conjured because of the roll. The character did well, but the situation is quite difficult. They didn’t slip and fall when they attacked; their opponent mounted an effective defense.
I’ll consider a revision that’s a less borderline case.
Yeah good point. I agree saying “Ninjas!” after every failed rolled is unnecessary, hard work and often jarring.
I guess I assumed the circumstances of the action was already established and all I was advocating was leaning on what’s already known. Like, maybe it was already clear there was a crowd around the fight, so saying their rowdiness is screwing you is not a big step. Same with the map: perhaps we already know it’s old, so it’s not much to say it’s difficult to read because it’s so old.
Obviously circumstances won’t always provide such grist for the mill, so yeah this approach won’t always be available, particularly if you don’t want to invent new circumstances.
it seems a fair example to me because it neither diminishes the scoundrel nor the obstacle. a foe that lucks their way to success can be entertaining once in a while, but the players also want to face significant, real challenges and overcome them.
It’s vital the characters face things that are intrinsically challenging. I also agree the example is a fine way to adjudicate the failed roll. And I don’t think all failures should blame the circumstances.
However, I don’t see this example as clearly demonstrating Blame the Circumstances, Not the Characters. As an example, I think it should help players understand how resolving failure this way is distinct from other ways. As such, I think it can be improved.
When I think of Blame the Circumstances, I often think of the break-in. Say the Lurk rolls poorly while climbing into the glass and mirror shop.
I could just say they slip and break glass and make a little (or a lot of) noise and attract a nearby patrol’s attention. I mean there’s lots of fragile stuff so it is hard to get in there cleanly. Still, this sounds awful like the Lurk was the wrong guy for the job.
Another approach is adding in a choice: break glass and make noise, or sprain yourself avoiding that. I think this slightly better because at least the player has some control over if their Lurk comes out a clumsy oaf. But they probably still sound like a rank amateur, all beat up and losing gear, which may or may not be important to the player.
Another way is to lean on the established circumstances or context around the break-in. Say there’s a patrol clock: suddenly it jumps a few notches, maybe the patrol has changed route, there’s a change of the guards, or something unrelated has attracted the guard’s attention dangerously close to the break-in. Now the patrol is so close to noticing the missing window pane and the break-in. Sure blaming the circumstances like this means the failed roll may not connect directly back to the Lurk’s action, but I think that’s fine. The important thing is it increases the pressure on the Lurk and does so without saying they’re bad at lurking. And to me that’s what blaming the circumstances means.
i definitely get what you’re saying, but it’s also an ambitious example, shooting for a fight scene, since they tend to have very cut-and-dried action / reaction dynamics. it’s pretty easy to imagine ways that circumstances can be to blame in other scenarios. oh, yeah, you prep’d for X and Y, but they seem to have added Z since you scoped them out, or yeah, you’re a phenomenal climber, but the brick facade here is just falling apart.
in a fight, though, it really comes down to “hey, you used your usual opener. it works on your average mook, and even guys tat go to the fighting schools, but this guy’s prepared for that.”
you can elaborate that this opponent’s using WESTERN style, oops, or stuff like that, but you can’t lean too heavily on such tropes. a quick, simple “you hit him solid,he defended solid” is pretty reasonable. it doesn’t diminish the facility of the character, it establishes what the circumstances of the fight might be.
I don’t know. If the character could say:
“If only I had been faster/harder/smarter/better at [my action] then I wouldn’t be so screwed”
then it sure sounds like you’re blaming the character, not the circumstances.
Yeah. I do understand what you’re saying. I’m working on the revision.