Just finished our first session, and we came across a rule we need clarified.
If a player rolls a desperate action and gets a 4/5, a major complication can arise (among other things, but let’s focus on this). The player chooses to resist the complication and takes stress based on their roll. Our question is: does the major complication totally go away, or does it become a minor complication in the same way that level 3 harm would become level 2 harm?
I had this thought as well. I’ve found it’s best judge by the fiction. Consider if the complication can be reduced in severity by resisting but still present a problem. Most often the complications are the sort that it makes the most sense for them to be completely overcome with a resist. If I’m concerned about making the consequences of a desperate roll seem easily overcome then I use some light harm and reduced effect alongside a slightly less severe consequence to make the player choose how many they can afford to resist and which they want to avoid more.
Although generally my group a pretty excited for the fiction and so the players enjoy narrative consequences. So them choosing to resist one signals to me that they don’t like what I’ve introduced for their character or the story and it’s better to let them negate it and move on to new things.
‘They get what they earned’ is always helpful to remember here for good or ill and there will always be more desperate actions and consequences in the future.
The complication goes away, according to the situation and how the PC resists it.
We played it like this: the complication occurs anyway, the pc does not resist the complication itself, but its effects. Then it goes away. So something occurred, then fades if resisted.
Yeah, that’s what I mean.
So the complication remains “in the narrative” but the character undergoes stress to avoid its effects?
That’s how I like to do it. But it’s a gray area, so you can handle it in a way that suits the situation.
Awesome, thanks John!