Quick question about resistance rolls…
Can you resist a reduced effect consequence? I assume so because there’s nothing mechanically to distinguish them from other consequences, but it intuitively feels a bit weird to me.
To put it more concretely: if I tell a player, “You shoot the guard, but because it’s misty out you wing them instead of kill them outright,” and she says, “No, I resist that”… does the guard take standard effect instead and die?
If Standard effect is them dying, absolutely.
A player can push for effect, which is a flat 2 stress. Resisting reduced effect is the same except they might burn more or less stress, depending on how they roll.
In general, yes – but keep in mind that factors aren’t typically resisted – consequences are. If its reduced effect because of mist, I would think that resisting doesn’t do much to fix that since it’s more of an ever-present factor reducing effect than a consequence. In other words, it matters whether there is room in the fiction for the PC to subvert a given consequence or not.
Further, I would recommend a setup teamwork action instead of resistance to overcome environmental factors like obscuring fog.
That’s not how I read the rules. See page 30:
” Reduced effect
This consequence represents impaired performance… This consequence essentially reduces the effect level of the PC’s action by one after all other factors are accounted for.”
So reduced effect is a consequence and when your PC suffers a consequence you don’t like, you can choose to resist it (page 320.
Yes that is true. I am just saying that while almost anything can be a consequence that can be resisted, not everything is
That does seem weird.
In my group I would allow it, if you can explain how you do it. It potentially costs extra stress so it’s ok if we see something plausible on screen.
There really isn’t one answer. This is a call for the GM to make: see page 6, “consequences” and “does the situation call for a dice roll?”