So my brother and I are having a bit of trouble translating the results of Controlled rolls into the narrative. Specifically the difference between 1-3 and 4-5. The wording make them seem very similar. Can you guys help me out? Examples showing the difference would be ideal.
Thanks! So far our solo game is slow going because neither of us is used to suck a heavy narrative game, but is awesome so far. I actually got him excited about writing his character backstory and details of his relationship with his contact. I could never get him to do that with D&D.
Well, for one, the fundamental outcome is different. A 4-5 means “(among other things) you were successful .” A 1-3 means “(among other things) you were not successful .” This is true of all three action positions (but at Controlled, the “other things” are less severe; for example, you can back out instead of suffering anything).
And the “other things” are always the risks you just discussed before the roll, which should be things which are bolded on p.9, but the number inflicted usually differs based on the result; like in the case of a 4-5, all or some of the consequences previously discussed happen, but in the case of a 1-3, all the badness happens (notwithstanding when the player backs out).
Knowing that, you should be able to better understand the action examples (p.25-30)
Basically, on any roll, a 6+ means you do it with no complications, 4/5 means you do it with complications, and 1-3 means you don’t do it at all (possibly with complications).
What a “controlled” action gives you is an option to bail out before those complications take effect and try again.
Here’s an example, wherein Odrienne is sneaking up behind a drunk Bluecoat to try and kill him. For simplicity’s sake, we’ll say that the GM has decided this is a simple use of Prowl, and it’s a controlled action.
6: “He’s dead. What do you do with the body?”
4/5: “Just as you’re about to stick him right in the lung, you hear his partner on the next block, shouting for a check-in. You can kill him now, but if his partner doesn’t hear him call back in a minute he’ll get suspicious (minor complication). Or you can check your attack and wait for a better opportunity. What do you do?”
1-3: “Before you can drive the knife home, the Bluecoat starts heaving. He runs straight for the gutter and starts puking his guts out. You can try to kill him while he’s otherwise occupied, but because you’ve got to cover some open ground the new roll will be risky. Or, again, you can scrap this plan and wait for a better opportunity to present itself. What do you do?”
I’m not sure if this is still a rule, but i’m pretty sure that even on a 1-3 atleast 1 tick should be given to any clock. Exceptions being of course when the effect says otherwise. But if that was the case it should probably be pointed out before the dice is rolled.
crit is great effect, 6 is regular effect, 4-5 regular effect with complication, 1-3 lesser effect with cost/complication
That’s the general frame work I work with. If you’re un sure who to demonstrate the difference between lesser effect and regular effect, it might be good to ask the player more about what he’s doing specifically in the fiction.
PC – “I go to push him out of the way of our escape route.”
greater effect – He trips and falls off the building
regular effect – he hits pipe and falls on his butt
regular effect with cost – He trips over a pipe from your push, but grabs your lapels as he’s going down
lesser effect with cost – You push him and he stumbles back a bit, but catches his footing. He’s coming at you with a knife now, what do you do?
Aaron Berger You seem to be mixing up regular action rolls with downtime actions. A 1-3 on a downtime roll still gives one tick on a clock, but a 1-3 on an action roll during a score is just a straight failure.
I guess what I’m referencing is the No whiffing/fail forward. Where things should always be changing. If there is no clock attached to the obstacle, then yeah the action was to little effect and the threat manifests in someway. If there was a clock I would give them 1 tick unless the fiction said otherwise.
This would be to avoid some guard obstacle with a 4 tick clock causing a ’round’ of actions where everyone ‘misses’ and nothing changes. Instead they’d take their lumps and eventually overcome. Of course there might be reinforcements on the way, as well as ravens looking for a dead body and a couple of moderate harms dealt out, but I think it be important to move forward.
I suggest you read the no whiffing section of the rules again. You can certainly play it that way, but that is not the default in blades. Don’t get me wrong, every roll should absolutely result in a change in the fiction, but in the case of a 1-3 that change is that you failed to achieve your goal and the situation changes for the worse somehow. Sometimes the PCs don’t overcome and end up on the defensive, that’s all part of the game.
Aaron Berger Sure a 1-3 may result in a tick of a clock, but not a clock that helps players, more like it will result in the tick of a Danger Clock.
Another way to explain the Controlled roll is that both 1-3 and 4-5 allows you to choose to fail without any complications then “Withdraw and try a different approach”. The difference is that on a 4-5 you can also choose to succeed by facing a minor complications, and 1-3 you fail but can pressing on by rolling again but with a Risky position
“Withdraw and try a different approach” is a bit of a fuzzy rule which I wish was a bit better explained in the rules. As I interpret it, you can choose a completely different action — the rules for Skirmish show someone choosing to back up and pull their pistol for a Hunt roll. Or you can choose to change your approach fictionally so you can roll the same Action again. A an example of this might be someone trying to break through the lighting barrier by trying to short circuit one of the posts with Tinker roll. They fail so now they need to try a different approach. To they try to find the main control box (likely a basic Survey roll) and then they can attempt a Controlled Tinker roll again.
Yeah I see how I was reading it wrong. I think it still works in situations where the NPCs aren’t out for blood, but its good to know for future.
Aaron Berger It’s a perfectly valid way to play, it just makes the game easier for your players. That may be what you’re looking for.
Technically the GM is allowed to give a PC limited effect on a 1-3 result. A 1-3 must be a “bad outcome”, but otherwise the GM is always free to tick clocks to fit the fiction.
But Mark is right that the No Whiffing section doesn’t instruct the GM to do this.