How often do players in your group choose not to resist consequences on 4/5 results?
I’ve run about 30 sessions of BitD for 4 different groups and I can only think of 3 or 4 times a player has just let the consequence happen…
Perhaps I’m being too harsh in my consequences?
I don’t think so, it’s up to them if they resist or not (and if they want to spend that stress).
In my games almost everything has been resisted too, except one ghost-related consequence that the scoundrel decided they could live with as they were already dealing with the ghost in question.
In our group, players usually opt to reserve Resistance to actual Harm consequences, with the notable exception of abilities that offer special armor.
Perhaps you need to give them more consequences, so that their stress is getting run down more? You can even give them multiple consequences on a single roll if it’s fictionally appropriate.
Maybe half-half?
I know I’m running a better game on the nights that they decide not to resist the consequences.
It means they feel that the consequence I’m offering will help drive the story forwards in a way they’ll enjoy.
Tony Demetriou yeah, that’s kinda where I was going. Perhaps I need to do a little reminder about how consequences can drive the story in more interesting directions.
My players generally only resist harm. Harm is also one of the less common consequences I’ll deliver, partly because I find it often less narratively interesting and partly because my players use of resistance generally indicates what they do and don’t find to be interesting things to happen in the game and to their characters.
If the players are resisting most consequences that might be fine, it’s in their power to do so, but if it feels off then it would be worth having a discussion to make sure you’re all on the same page with expectations and being mindful of both the player and GM best practices. Plus it’s always worth talking to the players about the kinds of trouble they are keen to see their characters get into and guiding your consequences in those directions.
My players usually only resist Harm as well. Sometimes they’ll resist a pretty serious consequence but that usually only results in it being downgraded not avoided.
My players tend to resist harm almost always (unless they use armour or are stressed out) and sometimes resist consequences. With them it tends to be about resource management more often then not. Harm and Stress have obvious implications and can be tracked and managed. A Consequence, to them, seems less of a priority because they can just work around them and has no obvious resource impact. Typically I do get a higher consequence resist if it impacts their gear though.
Jared Hunt I absolutely try to vary how severe the consequences are, sometimes intentionally making them very mild or very harsh. (And being careful that I’m not doing this too much to one player over the others.)
I also sometimes tell the players exactly where that consequence might drive the story.
Try to mix up different types of decisions.
“Do I take this harm or not?” is often a tactical choice.
“Do I risk the opponent escaping rather than let anyone see my face?” is a longer-term strategic decision,
and “Do I attack while they’re still with their family” is a moral decision.
And don’t even assume that consequences are always bad. A big, gory violent murder might be the consequence of a failed stealth assassination – but it should ALSO be an opportunity to build a fearsome reputation.
For example:
when trying to kidnap someone in their carriage, they made their attack roll.
– Consequences would be that he draws a small holdout pistol and tries to shoot them – so harm, but also that the gunshot will alert the driver and spook the horse.
The roll failed, and the player decided to resist the harm but not the gunshot sound.
… now we’ve got a fight on a moving carriage, with nobody holding the horse’s reins. That’s pretty exciting.
– While grappling with the driver I said that the consequence is that the carriage is going to run through a crowded market, and plenty of people will see this fight. Player decided to accept that consequence.
… now we’ve got the fight on the moving carriage, but with more scenery and descriptions of people leaping out of the way. Although this consequence doesn’t do anything immediately bad to the crew, we’re set up with great opportunities for interesting future consequences if they don’t get the carriage under control.
Plus, with so many witnesses, it gives me more ways to tie this event into whatever happens later in the game.
– Then they filed another roll in the market – still on the carriage – “this high speed carriage is going to hurt or kill some people as it plows through the crowd” and the player decided to resist that by grabbing the reins and wildly swerving around people and through market stalls.
… in this case, even though they resisted the consequence, their resistance wasn’t a negative “it doesn’t happen” but a more heroic active “you take control of the carriage and stop it from hitting anyone” action. (And ideally, we always want resisting an action to be something dramatic and active.)
Of course, during the battle I also offered other consequences, but I wanted to highlight the ones about the carriage because of the way it allowed the players to decide how dramatic their fight would be. Instead of being consequences against the PCs that makes them feel like they’re losing, it was a consequence in the “this situation is escalating” sense that lets them still feel like they’re winning.
One more for the “My players resist harm and embrace all other pain” category.
Much like Finbah Neill, my players really only try to resist harm. Other consequences they tend to let happen. But geez, I don’t see how you could possibly try to resist ALL the consequences of every 4-5 you got. You’d be in trauma-land in no time from all the stress.
A lot of comments about resisting harm – what sort of harm do you offer? Mostly physical injuries? How easy is it to fix that harm?
Don’t forget other types of harm. A seance so that ghosts will lead you through the sewers into the enemy compound might have harm like “cold as the grave” or some other spiritual injury, that goes away after a day.
A negotiation could have minor harm of “feeling annoyed at not getting a better deal” and so on.
Similarly, harm only gives penalties when it applies, so the annoyance applies to future social negotiations, but not to a combat.
Knowing the harm is less likely to give them a penalty might make them more willing to go along with it. Then you also get the benefit of the players being proactive to role play a resolution about that annoyance, so they’re doing more of the work for the GM.
I often offer harm for stuff I know the player won’t mind, because I think role playing the removal of that harm will be fun or interesting.
Hauntings, desire for revenge, owing favours, visible evidence (muddy and stinky from the sewers, can’t blend into a crowd as easily) and so on.
And the players being able to say “after the score I wash and get clean clothes” to remove the harm makes it much more likely the players will accept rather than resist. Which also means they have less unused harm slots remaining and are more likely to take serious harm if something goes wrong.
I’ve found 1 and 2 harms can be slipped in as devils bargins fairly easilly.
Also keep in mind harm isnt always fully resisted, that level 4 harm they resist can often be still level 2 after.
Players nearing their final trauma and the end of their stress can take a beating that they’ll likely not recover from the same season.
And finally, try to find naritivly compelling harm, and harm where the penalties are narrower, damages to voice, sight, hands and hearing can be the point where a player starts narrowing where theh can have effective rolls and find themselves with a grave fight when doing anything else.
I might experiment with more removable harm – the biggest reason to resist harm (at my table) is the sheer amount of resources that clearing it takes.
About 80% of the harm I give can be removed via roleplaying.
A haunting can be removed by burying the ghost’s body.
Blindness from chemicals can be removed once they get the chance to stop and take the time to properly flush out their eyes.
I’ll usually still let them spend resources to clear those, if the player seems uninterested in clearing them via active roleplay. Spend some coin to have street urchins find and bury the body etc.
Mostly, the players are there to roleplay, so once they know that it’s the best way to clear the harm, they usually embrace it.
And that roleplay often creates new and interesting situations that kick off the next part of the adventure.