Can you take action to stop the effects of an Entanglement? Say for Show of Force? I believe so, but others disagree.
Can you take action to stop the effects of an Entanglement? Say for Show of Force? I believe so, but others disagree.
Can you take action to stop the effects of an Entanglement? Say for Show of Force? I believe so, but others disagree.
Seems to me taking action to stop the effects of Show of Force would be done by choosing a type of plan and cutting to the action… no?
I don’t see why not, if it makes sense in the fiction, right? Several of the entanglements list “…or deal with it another way” as one of the options, and you could imagine that as a sort of implicit option for all entanglements. (Hell, “…or deal with it another way” is a pretty good implicit option for every RPG rule, ever.)
E.g., for Show of Force, you could refuse to concede the claim but avoid going to war by handing over something else that the other faction wants more (coin; intel; vengeance; etc.). John Harper is pretty smart but we can’t expect him to anticipate every possible outcome for us.
Yes.
The options for that are given in the Entanglement, and like Will is implying, the unspoken option is “or deal with it another way”
I would disagree if someone said that its the same as the usual Resistance. One point I would like to point out about Resistance in general is that the fiction still happens, but a new layer is added by resisting – whereby the declaration of reaction reduces or negates the effects of the bad outcome. However, with Entanglements, there are more specific things going on that are being enforced as part of a mechanical change attached to that fiction.
So I interpret the lines that say “_ or _ happens” in each Entanglement as giving specific teeth to the fictional occurrence, and resist options are what is stated (for the most part). “Give them 1 claim or go to war” says to me that you can resist the negative mechanical effect (specifically, the loss of 1 claim), and your resistance is the crew interceding somehow, leading to the gaining of the “at war” status (rather than a resist roll using Insight to avoid the Show of Force altogether).
I think we are supposed to assume that the bad Thing happens as per usual, and the PCs response tells us which fiction needs to follow, and the mechanical outcomes which make sense.
GM: “The Lampblacks show up at the Drunken Monkey, and pull guns to take the bar while you are out.”
PC: “NO way are they giong to take our money-producing bar! Resisting that by being there when it goes down.”
GM: “Ok so this is where you decide what you actually do. If you fight them, its going to be war. So what do you do?”
Yep. You essentially choose to gloss over it and pay up, or dig in to the action and play it all out (maybe paying in stress and/or harm instead :).
I think another issue here w/ Adam’s question was that the Crew didn’t have a claim yet (they were… quite violent) so it was “aaaand okay at war w/ a faction”.
The idea going into another plan to avoid it makes sense though! (Sort of Torchbearer – before hitting town type deal?)
Ben Wright The second paragraph was exactly what I was going for when I was talking about it.