Picking nits: On page 7, under resistance rolls, it says “The roll tells us how much stress their character suffers to reduce the severity of a consequence.” and then follows up with an example of that, but later examples of resistance rolls indicate that it’s a possibility for a resistance roll to totally avoid a consequence – the “disarm” example on page 11 strongly implies this, and the first example on page 13 has the GM deciding that consequences are merely reduced. This feels slightly inconsistent. I don’t know if we’re too late for the final text or not (I feel like it’s been implied that we’re not) but adding the words “avoid or” to the first example would make this feel more complete.
Picking nits: On page 7, under resistance rolls, it says “The roll tells us how much stress their character suffers…
Picking nits: On page 7, under resistance rolls, it says “The roll tells us how much stress their character suffers…
pg. 32 explains how its up to the table to decide. Some say completely avoid, other say reduce. It’s the knob that controls the grittiness of the game. Sometimes a reduced effect wouldn’t make sense, like with the disarm example. It makes more sense when dealing with clocks and harm.
Mike, you can report errors or changes here: https://goo.gl/NeMbvO
John, might I suggest a pinned post with just the errors link? It seems people are missing it.
G+ lets you pin only one post. Another triumph of design.
Oh, I didn’t realize.
Thanks John!