I’m new to BitD and struggling a bit with the 4/5 outcome on a Controlled position. One of the results is: “you end up in a risky position” (with a similar move to desperate from a risky position). I don’t really understand how this works. Is the intention that the PC re-rolls the same action but from the new position? Or should it be a new action but automatically in the new position? The former seems to contradict the whole ‘roll once’ philosophy.
Thanks!
They get what they set out to do but end up in a spot.
Example: They try to lockpick a servants’ entrance to the manor and get a 4-5. You choose “you do it but you end up in a risky position”, meaning, for example, they get inside, silently close the door behind them and immediately hear boots and see the light of a lantern. Someone is about to round the corner and spot you! What do you do?
I take it as you succeed, but your position has now gone from Controlled to Risky for your next thing.
Mathias Belger you described a Complication – not a Worse Position.
Kirk Hockin If the GM chooses Worse Position, it’s “You haven’t failed, but you haven’t succeeded yet.” Review p.31. They can try again at a worsened position.
Using Mathais’ example: “Oh, almost. As the tumblers inside the lock are about to line up, you hear a tormented shriek that rattles your concentration. Shit, they said this manor was haunted..! But now one of your lockpicks is beginning to fail under the repeated attempts. Since this was Controlled, you can withdraw and try another method, or try the same thing again at Risky position. The risk is as before (ticking the Alert clock), but now there’s 2 ticks on the line instead of just 1.”
Mathias Belger that’s awesome! Click! Now it makes sense.
uh, hm.
Mark, you are describing a Controlled 1-3, not a Controlled 4-5.
I was not. Source p. 23 + p.31.
But then again.. I understand why this leads to confusion: on a Controlled 4/5 it says “or else you do it with a minor consequence” and lists ending up in a Risky position. This seems completely incompatible with what Worse Position says. However, Worse Position is simply incompatible with “doing it” when you only went for a minor (1) effect – in that case, there is no “doing it” and ending up in Worse Position (where you didn’t fail, but you didn’t quite do it).
Mark Cleveland Massengale My reply got stuck in the ether… I thought I posted it hours ago, but nay, it appeared right after your post. I’ll dig into page 31 and see what it says. Thanks!
Mark Cleveland Massengale Look at one of the examples that we have for a Risky position after a Controlled 4-5: p.175:
“You knock him out and drag him out of sight under the stairs. Another guard bursts into the room holding a small keg under his arm. “I got some!” he says. He peers around. “Markus?” He’s blocking the only way out of here. What do you do?”
That seems more in line with Mathias’ example than yours, whereas (one possible) Controlled 1-3 result for dropping to a Risky position is (p.179):
“He shakes his head the whole time you’re talking, making a face. “You’re right, I know! But I can’t do anything! You have to tell Vale to let me back into her crew. Then I’ll be safe, and I can do this for you.””
So on a 4-5 Controlled with complication worse position, you still fundamentally do it, because you do it on a 4-5, always (perhaps to less effect, if that’s one of the consequences). The result that you haven’t succeeded, but haven’t failed either, is ONLY applicable when you roll a 1-3. On a Controlled 1-3, it’s built in as the only outcome; on a Risky 1-3, it’s one of the possible outcomes.
Mathias Belger Go, Mathias! 🙂
Mark, these guys are correct.
It does specifically state “or else YOU DO IT but suffer… or end up in a risky position”.
Ending up in a risky position is not the equivelant of a minor consequence. Thats the difference between “As you make your escape, you rip your coat on your way out leaving behind evidence, gain +1 heat or roll to resist” (minor consequence) and “As you make your escape you stumble upon a couple of guards taking a piss in the canals; you’ll have to sneak past them.” (Risky position).
For Kirks benefit; in a controlled position:
Crit: You do it with extra effect. You get something extra for your awesome roll.
6: You do it.
4-5: You realise this may not have been the best approach. Withdraw now and take no consequence or do it but take a minor one.
1-3: You don’t do it. Seize a risky opportunity that the GM presents you and roll again, or withdraw and try a different approach.
Example:
Caster is picking the locks to a noblemans house. Shes in no immediate danger and has her lockpicks with her. Controlled position, standard effect. She rolls Tinker to pick the lock.
Crit: She improves to Great Effect, meaning she gets some added benefit on top of her roll. She picks the lock and something else goes in her favor. Perhaps there’s no guards on duty, maybe all the locks in the house are shoddily made and no longer need a roll to unlock, maybe she notices an oppotunity she can exploit.
6: She picks the lock and enters the door.
4-5: She can either withdraw now before any consequences and try something new, or she can pick the lock but takes a minor consequence. She might have made some noise and guards are on their way to check out the noise (risky position on her next roll), maybe she leaves behind evidence and takes some heat, or perhaps she picked the lock to an area she wasnt expecting to be, or there’s a sleeping guard inside. (minor complications).
1-3: She does NOT pick the lock. She fumbles around, this lock is a lot more tricky than she thought, and then CLUNK. The lock is starting to break, she can roll again seizing the risky opportunity that the lock causes way more noise and alerts the guards, or she can stop messing with a difficult lock and try prowling through the upstairs window instead.
It might also be useful to think of the old “intent vs task” differentiation: I was assuming the intent to be “get inside the manor undetected” and not “pick this lock”. That’s just the task to achieve the intent. Thus Mark Cleveland Massengale’s reference to pg.31 still holds in my example.
A minor complication under these circumstances would be stuff like “you do it but you leave marks on the lock which might be found if someone investigates” or “you do it but you ruin the lock, the door can’t be closed properly anymore” or “you do it but you ruin the lock picks you carried with you”.
Yep, I do it the way Mathias described.
Sometimes the risky spot you end up in is a continuation of the action rather than a new thing, depending on context.
Like, in a fight, if the fight isn’t over, your risky position might reflect an escalation of threat in the same situation (you scored a wound but they got inside your reach so now their dagger is in play).
Sorry to be divisive. I just can’t reconcile this clarification with what I read in the text. I keep coming back to this question: How can they both be true?
Focusing on the clarification by you, John Harper, and your +1s. The example Jakob quoted from p175 reads to me exactly like a Complication – not Risky (Worse) Position. The PC did it, but something new arose. So I have to wonder: how is that example Worse Position, and not.. a Success w/Complication? (the character there is rolling against a new complication, and its seems to merely be coincidence that rolling the action to deal with it is Risky)
Further, I was saying that when shooting for given effect, the Worse Position is incompatible with a 4/5 unless the effect is reduced. Which still seems true, yet you +1ed that response which claims to be a refutation of what I said. How can you both “do it” (to the desired effect) and suffer Worse Position when it so obviously says “you didn’t quite do it” and you have to reroll? You’d have to also suffer Reduced Effect.
Then I read your reply above: “sometimes [..] is a continuation”
Which sounds like is saying what I was, but with the exception being the other way around. This seems to contradicts what Worse Position says it is as well (if anything, the text indicates the norm would be a continuation due to “not quite doing it”).
I am confused as hell now lol. Did I misunderstand? Are these all compatible with one another somehow? I must’ve missed something :/
Wow! I never imagined my question to be so schismatic! Two thoughts:
1) I’m not sure my confusion has been alleviated… 🙂 but I’ve also not had a chance to truly parse all the replies.
2) I’m enjoying the back and forth, the different interpretations. The open possibility for individual tables to dig in and find their own style of game is grand.
Kirk Hockin This thread is now confusing… but is what the texts ask you to do and choose from on a 4-5 still?
The truth is every table needs to have a back and forth to come to a shared understanding and expectation for their game.
At the end, every complication can be viewed as a worse position and vice versa (or as a lessened effect); this always heavily depends on the exact context and very much on how, in that specific situation, the perspective is framed (see my intent vs task resolution) in the conversation at hand.
Sometimes a consequence emerges from the fiction that can easily be painted as either.
The question is, do you now feel equipped to take this option during play?
Mathias Belger I’m not ready to tackle this in play as of yet; as I said I need to ruminate a while on all this commentary. Life is busy; I’ll carve out some reflection time for this in a couple of days.
And I do appreciate all the help. There are plenty of examples and ideas here to help me build a deeper understanding, no doubt.
I would say this may be an area where your table can decide how they want to play it. For me, I read the controlled position as nothing is currently causing a threat to you. But if you roll a 4-5, you have some choices as far as judging the outcome. “You hesitate” to me implies that you haven’t succeed yet. You can take a success but at a cost. Or you can withdraw and try a different approach at no cost. But if you choose to take the success, this is when you end up in a risky position for your next roll. So now there is a threat, or some sort of pressure on you. This is my take on it, so I wish you luck on your ruminations.
Mark Cleveland Massengale said:
“How can you both “do it” (1 effect) *_and* suffer Worse Position when it so obviously says “you didn’t quite do it”_ and you have to reroll?”
The Controlled outcome for 4/5 says:
or else _*_do it*_ with a minor consequence:_
then it lists consequences for the GM to choose from (one or more). One of those is ending up in a risky position.
Maybe you’re confused because you think the GM may inflict only one consequence? But that’s not true. A complication and worse position can both happen, and when described in the fiction they might look like a single thing causing them.
Or maybe you’re confused because you think “you do it” means “you achieve your entire goal with this roll.” Which it doesn’t mean. It means, “you achieve your effect” (which may be limited or none).
I don’t know. I’m having a little trouble parsing your last message. Maybe this is on the right track or maybe not.
Okay, so just two things on my mind right now – which revolve around the original example which you also +1ed, John Harper. Yes, the one Jakob posted from p175, and apparently only I would dare to disagree with. It is quoted to show us an example of a Controlled Prowl roll resulting in a “4/5 Risky Position” at full effect. Here are the two claims I am making:
* That Worse Position must be accompanied by reduced effect (which includes zero effect) is true (the inverse of which is that Jakes claim is false. Specifically, the claim that (a) Worse Position can happen at the same time as (b) full effect is not true)
* Further, I make the probably-controversial claim II that this example was definitely written assuming a starting position of Risky not Controlled – despite what the text on the page says.
The Worse Position consequence is always accompanied by less effect or no effect, because Worse Position (a) straightaway rules full effect (b) out. In WP’s description when it says “you didn’t quite do it,” which if true means you can’t also have “done it to full effect.” Besides, Worse Position describes it as a “reroll” and to “try again” – and to even make sense of that, you must also declare the resulting effect to be less than desired or zero – anything else means they’d have already done it.
For the second claim: The position and effect matrix p23 directs us to always offer two options on a Controlled 4/5: option 1 is always you back out and change approaches OR option 2 is you do it to some degree and suffer some consequences (and in this case, the consequence Worse Position arising from Controlled is supposedly being shown). However, observe there is no offer given to change approaches at all – the fiction is delivered, and we are moving on now to the new guard. This is either an example of a Controlled result that conflicts with Controlled position – or it’s not even Controlled to begin with (!). Further, this is clearly a description of a full success (exactly what the player described happened), which we already know cannot combine with Worse Position without the same logical issue as before.
So if it’s not Controlled, what is it? It’s a completely accurate depiction instead of a Prowl roll with the same start and end, but starting at Risky and resulting in a “4/5 Complication.” This is why I reason this must be a pair of typos simply misplaced in a way that manages to make it seem fine – until logical analysis points a light at it.
Mark Cleveland Massengale I would just add that the Worse Position consequence doesnt necessarily need to be accompanied by reduced effect, because you could allow the character to fully accomplish their goal, but the situation has now changed so that their next roll is in a risky position rather than a controlled one. That ruling would be totally within the bounds of the rules. But you could also have the character hesitate, giving them the opportunity to withdraw and try a new approach at controlled position, or try the same approach again, but at worse position.
Yeah, the worse position could just be on another vector.
I understand that Michael Yater but when the situation changes and you do the thing you set out to do, that is a Complication, and is also what happens when another situation simply arises as a matter of course. It lacks the thing that makes Worse Position different -escalation of the same action, re-rolling to do it again.
PS: Hesitation is a possible outcome of Controlled situations. That is not required to create Worse Position, just the option to change approaches and the knowledge you will experience worse consequences if you continue and perform poorly again.
Also worth noting is that of course Worse Position is not exactly including the mechanical suffering of Reduced Effect, but you fictionally “haven’t quite done it, and haven’t quite failed” – and while the outcomes are very similar there is no way to both do it fully and not quite do it, requiring a re-roll at a worsened position to make it go as you originally wanted. You can, of course, do something partially and suffer Reduced Effect, then continue on with the fiction, combining this with Worse Position or not as needed.
Again, 4-5 is a success, no re-rolling the same action for the same thing (in fact, don’t ever do this without a significant change in situation).
Complications can be many things, they can be just a loss of resources,for example, and do not need to imply a change in the general position the character is in. If the position changes because of the roll, then the gm has chosen Worse Position. They may, however, not have chosen Lessened Effect. These consequences can correlate but do not have to.
Mathias Belger I dont think that is necessarily true though. Since a possible consequence is less effect. If you are rolling at controlled, standard effect for example, the GM could decide on reduced effect as a consequence. So your effect would then be limited. Then if you want to try to finish the task, it could be at a different position since the fiction has changed. This also goes back to what John said about being able to have more than one consequence. I could have reduced effect, as well as worse position be the consequence of your roll. But as with all things in Blades, if you dont like the consequence, resist that shit. But as with a lot of these discussions, I am merely sharing how I run things at my table. The way I do things is not the only way it can be done.
“4-5 is a success”
Kind of. It is a variation on success.
“No re-rolling the same action”
Disagree. This is precisely what Worse Position tells us to do.
“Don’t ever do this without a significant change in situation”
I partially agree. A situational change is included as fiction develops though. Like when you almost make the jump, but are hanging on the other side by your fingertips (Worse Position example on p31) – or when want to find a new target, and you get introduced to a potential one while things get riskier than before (Consort example of WP on p172).
“If the position changes because of the roll, then the GM has chosen Worse Position”
Disagree. Position changes quite frequently because of rolls that crit too. It can be many things, such as Complications. However, only Worse Position has them re-roll with the action not yet done or failed.
“These consequences can correlate but do not have to”
I agree. I am not saying you actually need to choose Reduced Effect as a consequence to choose Worse Position. As I have tried to show, it’s included in the Worse Position. Or else you would have done it, and a re-roll isn’t possible.
Michael Yater yeah, that was my point: these can all be connected but do not need to be. Worse Position does not have Lessened Effect as a mandatory or inherint part to it as Mark Cleveland Massengale keeps suggesting.
The lines between these options are fuzzy to begin with, especially in certain contexts, because they all need to be rooted and feed back into the fiction.
Mark Cleveland Massengale I wrote “no re-rolling the same action for the same thing” not just “no re-rolling the same action”. You can re-roll the same action for lots of different things and/or as the situation changes.