Hi all,
Hope you all had a merry scoundrel’s Christmas !
When re-reading the examples for “Skirmish” on page 176 I noticed a possible mistake : in the “Desperate” example, the PC makes a 4/5 but is only punished by “level 2 Harm”, which seems not to be in conformity with the page 23’s table, where it should be “sever harm (level 3)”. Am I missing something ?
Then the example led me to thinking.
– In such a situation, if the opponent is approx. the same force as the PC, I (the PC) make an Action Roll. Desperate position, so if any other result than a 6, then : boom, “severe harm” to me. But if the opponent is much better than me, I don’t even roll the dice at the beginning of the fight (see p. 167). So the GM can choose to inflict any harm to me, from level 1 (if the NPC wants to play cat and mouse) to level 4, death by sword through the heart, and any result in between (level : sword through the thigh, because he wants to get me as a prisoner and make me talk etc). The result of this is that : lighter wounds are possible only if the opponent is much better. If he is not that good and I choose to fight, then it’s level 3 harm… (in such a Desperate ” situation, me being unarmed).
That’s a kind of fictional contradiction that gave me some thought.
– The next set was : is “level 4 Harm” = Death only possible through the fiction and by GM fiat ? (except if you already are wounded to level 3 Harm and get another level 3 which is then bumped to fatal). Or is there some place in the game that I have missed, which makes it possible to get a Fatal Harm because of the dice mechanic ?
If your enemy is much less competent than you, perhaps being unarmed against them is not Desperate, but only Risky. But as you said, if you’re up against an equally competent foe but you are at a serious disadvantage due to the situation, why wouldn’t that be extremely dangerous?
Furthermore, consequences are not an exact formula, and can be split up — a “Desperate” level consequence can be one instance of level 3 harm, but it can also be level 2 harm plus a complication, or level 1 harm plus a serious complication, or level 3 harm plus a complication, level 2 harm plus reduced effect, whatever … follow the fiction. Not every instance of harm on a Desperate 1–5 is severe harm — you should consider it more as a worst case scenario: do not hand out severe harm, or a serious complication, on a Risky roll. But giving several more or less severe consequences on a Desperate 1–5 is totally fair game — and do not forget about armor and resistance, which will often turn that level 3 harm into a level 2 or 1 harm anyway.
Anyway, the previous point leads into your second question: level 4 harm is possible if the fiction demands it, like every other kind of harm. There is no name in the game for a “Worse Than Desperate” situation, it is just called Desperate – but when the players try something suicidal, or when they fail Desperate rolls and the situation gets worse and worse, there comes a moment when death might be on the line, and then you can go out and say: “You’re locked with Tyraxis in single combat, and all you have is a pistol. You may be able to keep it occupied for now if you succeed on this roll, but you are fighting a demon, so a failure here means death for your character, you okay with that? Want to try something else, or do you want to go ahead with this action?”
I agree on the example though, something is off there. if the only consequence is level 2 harm, perhaps the situation was Risky after all.
Jakob Oesinghaus Hi Jakob, thanks fo your long answer.
To answer on your several points :
– “if you’re up against an equally competent foe but you are at a serious disadvantage due to the situation, why wouldn’t that be extremely dangerous?” Of course it should be extremely dangerous (Desperate) ; it is the automaticity of the “severe” Harm, compared to the non-automaticity of it when you are up against a much better opponent, as in my example, which I find a bit contradictory.
– “consequences are not an exact formula, and can be split up” : AFAIK, this would be a home rule, and it is never written as such in the book. The table on page 23 and the accompanying text just is in my opinion pretty clear that those are the consequences to inflict, not a worst case scenario. The degree of freedom is in the number of different consequences that can inflicted, and in the Resistance roll where the GM can decide to waive off part or all of the consequences. For me, if you treat the consequences of this table only as worst case scenario, then the whole table is pretty useless.
– “do not forget about armor and resistance” : I had not forgotten, thanks.
– Ok for the confirmation that Level 4 Harm comes only from the fiction and not for the dice mechanics ; that was my impression.
Level 4 harm is a consequence from fighting in a desperate position where you’re severly outmatched (GM discression) or from taking two level 3 harms.
Level 4 harm isnt always death. It depends on the fiction. The character suffers either death or a perminent consequence (losing a limb for example).
Also Jakob is correct, you can split multiple consequences across a single roll. See the consequences page, second paragraph:
“A given circumstance might result in one or more
consequences, depending on the situation. The GM
determines the consequences, following from the
fiction and the style and tone established by the game
group.”
You can also watch John Harper GM in Rollplay Blades and he does this a couple of times himself, splitting a failed roll into multiple consequences of lesser severity.
– But against a better opponent, all other things being equal, you’re obviously also in a Desperate position, so you would get whatever they inflict automatically, plus the severe harm on a 1–5, which is always going to be worse than what you get from an equally skilled opponent. I fail to see the contradiction.
– You’re right, that must be a house rule, I don’t really know where I have this from, including the rough rule of “consequence severity must add up to at least 3 for a Desperate roll”. Just checked the book and it’s not in there. I don’t see the table as useless in this case, though; if you are going to go with a single consequence on a 1–5, choose one from the list. If you have several consequences, they do not all have to be of the most severe kind possible. Done.
Antimatter Hi, thanks for the answer.
– “Level 4 harm isnt always death” : In the book, Level 4 Harm is qualified as “Fatal”. It means Death. As the examples say : “Electrocuted, Drowned, Stabbed in the Heart.”.
– I have reread the exact wording : the “permanent consequence (losing a limb for example)” is in fact not a result of a direct level 4 Harm inflicted by the fiction. It is only when you have to bump up a Level 3 Harm, because the row is taken, that it doesn’t always mean death. “If you run out of spaces on the top row and need to mark harm there, your character suffers a catastrophic, permanent consequence (loss of a limb, sudden death, etc., depending on the circumstances)”.
To me, it means that a direct Level 4 Harm is Death.
– Your citation from the book (“A given circumstance… by the game group.”) does say that the GM can inflict one or more consequences, which was not in question. It DOES NOT say that those consequences can be less severe that what is indicated in the table for the corresponding position.
– So if Jonh Harper himself does this (several consequences, but of lesser severity), my opinion is that it should CLEARER in the rules that it can be done. And my opinion also says that it adds even more to GM fiat. If the GM can just decide, even after a roll, what is the severity of the wounds, then the table is useless.
Jakob Oesinghaus
– There is a contradiction, because since the better opponent acts according to “his” fiction, he can inflict anything from light wound to death, as I have described in my initial example. BUT the same-force opponent does not act : his acts are decided by my Action Roll, and the table says that in a desperate position, the Harm is Severe. The contradiction is in the fact that there is no possibility of getting lighter wounds from the low-competence opponent than from the high-competence one.
– Antimatter wrote that John H. does exactly what you suggest : if several consequences, then lesser severity. I say OK, but then I think this is a very important decision and that it should at least be much clearer in the rules. Also, in the example I cited from page 176 of the book, the “level 2 Harm” (less severe the “level 3” which should occur from the desperate position) was the only consequence…
I agree that the example was weird! (see a quick edit to my earlier post). The contradiction — which, to my mind, is hardly one — vanishes if you follow the fiction and inflict several consequences of lesser severity — which should explicitly have been in the book, I agree.
Always follow the fiction: if the fiction suggests that a lighter wound should be appropriate, inflict the lighter wound, and hit them with some other consequence to top it up, because you judged them to be in a Desperate position. Or, if you think the harm should not be severe and there are no other consequences, their action is probably not Desperate to begin with.