p32 Resistance and Armour
“When your PC suffers a consequence that you don’t like, you can choose to resist it.”
What counts as “your PC suffers a consequence”:
a) any consequence that follows from an action roll that your PC makes, or
b) only consequences that your PC suffers or faces directly themselves.
I’d say “c”: every consequence that follows from an action roll that your PC has a way to narratively resist 🙂
But the rules don’t say that. They say if you don’t like it, you can resist it.
What counts as consequence? p27:
„When a PC suffers an effect from an enemy or a dangerous situation, it’s called a consequence. Consequences are the companion to effects. PCs have effect on the world around them and they suffer consequences in return from the risks they face. See page 30 for details on consequences and how they impact the player characters.“
I still have the same question. Can your PC resist any effect that follows from their action roll, or only effects they suffer or face directly themselves?
Oliver Granger that’s what I was trying to say: I think that the way to the say when the PC is suffering directly from a consequence is by interrogating the fiction. If something is happening and I can resist it, it’s because (in some ways) it’s affecting the PC directly. Otherwise, the consequence it’s not directly targeted at the PC.
MisterTia86 This may sound strange but I agree with you. I’m just trying to clarify what the rules actually mean by suffering a consequence.
One of my Blades groups is prosecuting the case that if a PC rolls badly then any consequence of that roll is a consequence the PC is suffering and so a consequence they can choose to resist it.
And that’s true! But the idea is that sometimes a consequence (complication especially) are not always suffered directly by the PC, and that’s something that can only be determined by the fiction; for example:
– If I say “you take too long cracking the safe, so the time limit clock for the job gets 2 ticks”, then they can resist it.
– If I say “you manage to sneak into the museum only to discover that there is another crew of thieves that are sneaking this very night to steal the same thing (a serious complication)” than that consequence is not directed at the PC, it’s a narrative fact that I introduced because the roll allowed me to introduce it (and can eventually be adressed by a flashback like, “yeah we knew, that’s why we brought a false replacemente to trick them”).
The difference, for me, is subtle but important: sometime a consequence is the result of an action in the narration, and therefore is imposed on the PC (you take too long), while other times is just the result of the roll which invites you to introduces unexpected complications.
Oliver Granger but imho it‘s clear what a RAW consequence is from the text I quoted: „When a PC suffers…“. This is also how John plays during his streams. The PC who is affected can resist (though not always as a result of an Action roll, but also in other cases where a PC is affected by an „enemy or a dangerous situation“).
Yep, but the counterclaim I’ve heard is that a consequence that is a result of a PC’s roll is a consequence the PC is suffering.
Let’s just just say that, if your group really want to play like that and you don’t mind that the PC can resist things outside of their control, then you can play resistance like that.
But, if we’re going to “nitpick”, then the rules imply that the PC suffers the consequence if you gave them Reduced Effect, Harm and Worse Position.
– On Reduced Effect, the text says: “The PC’s action isn’t as effective as they’d anticipated”.
– On “Worse Position” the text says: “the action carries you into a more dangerous position”.
– “Harm” is something that the PC suffers directly by definition.
On the other hand, Complications and Lost Opportunities doesn’t automatically imply that in the text:
– On Complications, “the GM may introduce an immediate problem that results from the action” (so, consequence on the PC) OR “tick a clock for a complication instead” (which might result from the narrative action, but it’s not mandatory as in the first case).
– On Lost Opportunity it just says “shifting circumstances”.
These two cases are not always directly on the PC and sometimes resisting them doesn’t make sense.
For example:
– Lost Opportunity. “You try to snipe him but before you can do it, he enters the basement.” You failed to snipe him, how can you resist him going into the basement?
-Complication. “You are navigating the sewers, you notice that the water starts to rise because of some unexpected maintenance from work in other tunnels. I tick the Water-is-Rising clock.” How are you going to resist something like that?
Resisting is not a save after you failed (because you don’t roll twice for the same thing) and it’s not a substitute to taking action because something goes wrong.
Oliver Granger I would argue that is a consequence for the player, not the character. And it reads PC clearly RAW
MisterTia86 except the trigger isn’t if resisting makes sense; it is if you don’t like the consequence, you can choose to resist it. And it’s always automatically effective—the GM will tell you if the consequence is reduced in severity or if you avoid it entirely.
I don’t want to run it that way, I’m looking for clarity that the rules support b) and not a).
EinBein13 the best argument I can find is in support of b) is how the Protect move is written: you can only protect someone else from a consequence (and resist it if you like) if you suffer that consequence yourself. That suggests that it’s necessary to suffer the consequence yourself to actually resist that consequence.
Oliver Granger we’ve actually specifically addressed this in my group, and the conclusion we came to was this:
1) consequences affect YOUR PC. Your actions may affect other PCs, NPCs, and the world, but those are not capital-C game-term Consequences. I can’t roll to Resist your character getting shot because I blew a roll to distract the baddie (though maybe I’d let a player roll resist to take levels of harm herself instead of you). In our game, resistance has to be things your PC can do something about (which is what the Stress costs represent, in our interpretation).
2) I don’t always allow players to Resist. It isn’t on the table every single time something goes wrong, generally when the consequences are too big. When it is, I usually allow reduction of consequences rather than outright avoidance, unless the effect is very binary.
3) we use the “hardcore resistance” rules on p. 231 so it’s never free.
I hope this gives you some perspective to work with!
Rebecca W thanks.
I’ve had lengthy discussion after a game where the Hound rolled badly shooting a guard. As a consequence I said their falcon hunting animal got shot by the guard (it was flying around as a distraction as a setup action). They said they wanted to resist that consequence. I said you can’t because all the reasons above and more: it’s a cohort not your PC, you need to say how your PC intervenes to Protect first before you could resist for them, it’s a Prowess resist roll so how would Mind-Link help.
They remained unconvinced that was what the rules said or intended and I couldn’t find anything in the book that supported my position neatly and clearly. I was just hoping I missed something.
Oliver Granger
I feel like the cohorts are extensions of the player and that they could have used Insight to resist not having told their Falcon to take the correct evasive pattern to avoid harm.
PCs might need to babysit/hover over their cohorts in some unnatural ways if there isn’t some flexibility for resistance types.
Oliver Granger I was actually trying to explain the same thing that Rebecca W said (but maybe less clearly): the point of asking “does resisting make sense?” was a way to ask if a consequence is directed at a PC or not. If it is, then RAW you can resist it, otherwise you can not.
Also, blades is Fiction First by definition (pag 161) “you don’t pick a mechanic first, you say something about the fiction first.”
Omari Brooks The GM sets the attribute to resist with though, based on the nature of the consequence. In this case, it wasn’t the guard lining up a shot or anything; it was a wild shot of a man dying of an arrow wound. There wasn’t time for talking or evasive action. So given those circumstances I said as GM any resistance roll has to be about resisting physical injury of getting shot.
I get that players earn their cohorts and hold them close, but what I’m worried about here is whether I am missing something or misunderstanding the rules for resistance. Do you think the rules allow a PC to resist a consequence that their cohort is suffering, without triggering the Protect move?
MisterTia86 okay, but that’s my question: do the rules say a consequence can only be resisted if it’s directed at your PC? Rebecca said her group agreed it does, you certainly seem to think they do. Cool.
I get the fiction-first idea, but it’s only so helpful. In this case, We agreed on the fictional situation but not whether the resistance mechanic could be used to mechanise it. The Hound is helping their falcon dodge bullet harm. Does the Hound suffer a consequence when their falcon gets shot? The Hound said yes! And I said no.
RAW:
“When your PC suffers a consequence…you can choose to resist it”
Yes, it does say that. You can also protect others and expose yourself to the consequence instead (and resist to that).
About the Hound, it’s a discussion at your table. In theory, you are right: it’s a cohort, so you can’t “resist” directly but you can protect them exposing yourself to the harm (which in that situation seems pretty doable: if you shoot a guard it’s not hard to make yourself the preferred target instead of you falcon). In practice, it’s basically the same thing from a mechanical standopint, but it’s different in the fiction. How different? Not so much actually, because you could just take your player intention and say “so you make your mind-linked falcon a difficult target and the guard decides to shoot you instead” (protect) “and now you can resist if you want”.
I think I would have allowed resisting. Either as a Protect Teamwork by the Hound or as an Insight resist. Both sound reasonably cool to me.
Oliver Granger I would say that Cohorts can’t suffer Consequences at all. The Hound suffered a Consequence. Is an injured cohort a Lost Opportunity? A Reduced Effect? Complication? Worse Position? These are Consequences resulting from a bad roll. (P30) (The PC is not suffering Harm, so it’s not that Consequence.)
Once you decide which Consequence it was, like say, “As the guard dies, he makes a wild shot. It’s going to injure your bird. That will remove your distraction, putting you in a Worse Position.” Player: “I Resist. I’ve maneuvered past the point where the distraction was helping.” GM: “So your maneuvering helped you Resist? Sounds like Insight.” (Note: Bird is still injured. But Consequence was Resisted.)
Or “…putting you in a Worse Position.” Player: “I Resist. I stabbed him so hard his shot went wide.” GM: “So you’re using your strength to Resist?
Sounds like Prowess.” (In this case, bird is NOT injured, and Consequence is Resisted.)
I know Fiction First. But the rules also look at the game from a meta-level, and sometimes it’s helpful to move back up to their level of abstraction.
A Resist feels to me like an Interrupt. GM says ‘this happens.’ PC says ‘Oh no it di’nt.’ Then you figure out how the story really went, together. So the Hound’s player saying ‘I Resist’ moves the game back to before the bird gets shot.
Oliver Granger
The GM might consider being flexible in their thinking because they are the one to set the resist attribute.
PCs have flexibility in which action rolls they choose so help them out instead of being a hinderance especially when they are willing to but their own resources (stress) on the line.
Why force the PC to always be near cohorts to physically intervene? We have all seen fiction where someone shouts out a distracting phrase to save a friend in physically danger. Or caused some other distraction that didn’t physically interact with the focal attacker/victim.
Personally it feels icky for me to present consquences that can’t be resisted. Feels to much like “Gotcha!” GMing.
And l think the rules allow PCs to resist a consquence if they can say how they do it in the fiction. That way doesn’t have to be realistic or probably, as long as it isn’t impossible then they get to do it.
So lots of different ideas. It’s interesting more folks seem to more supportive of a) when I get specific. It’s a game of judgement calls, so it’s no surprise we disagree about a specific situation, particularly since I’ve only outlined the details and the details matter in judgement calls. But they’re principled judgement calls, and the rules are the core principles. That’s what I’m interested in here: is this a principled disagreement?
Arne Jamtgaard MisterTia86
A resistance roll is not an interrupt. See p199 Don’t roll twice for the same thing. The Hound can’t undo their falcon getting shot. Their action roll determined that has already happened. The only thing a resistance roll can do is reduce the impact of that shot.
The Cohort getting shot is just me following the fiction. They put their falcon in danger using it to attract the guard’s attention and create an opening to shoot the guard. On a 4-5 roll, the Hound killed the guard but there’s a complication, their falcon is hurt. I see no rule against that, I think it follows the fiction, and saying the cohort is inviolate seems the boring path.
EinBein13
It’s not about the GM allowing Protect, it’s about Protect requiring the players to describe how they intervene and suffer the consequence another is facing. Given the setup, the players didn’t find a way to describe that. So they couldn’t trigger the Protect move.
Omari Brooks
The GM decides. I judged the nature of the consequence and said there was no warning or aiming of the shot, it was wild. There was no time to deflect the shot or yell, the Hound was a distance away up a tree. I get you might judge the situation differently, but I’m not interested in who’s judgement is better. I want to know, given that GM decides the attribute to resist with, and given my particular decision that it’s Prowess, can the PC still resist the consequence?
That ickiness about presenting consequences the PCs can’t resist, that’s super interesting. I want to know if the rules allow you to present consequences the PCs can’t resist. A few folks above say yes!
And again, the resistance rules don’t require the player to say what their PC does in the fiction. Page 32 specifically shows all they need to say is “I don’t like that consequence” and then they can roll.
Rebecca said her principle is PCs can only resist consequence directed at them. So that’s a basis from which to say the Hound can’t resist the Falcon being shot. And that’s my question is, do the rules actually require that principle or not? I’m hearing mixed views now.
Oliver Granger As I said, you could let the Hound Protect his falcon, then resist getting shot.
I said nothing about “interrupting”: the guard still takes the shot (his action is uninterrupted) but the Hound pay the price instead of his pet.
If there wasn’t a way to Protect the falcon (which wasn’t obvious from your description), then the falcon gets shot: period.
I would also say that if the player wants to save his falcon, I would help him find a reasonable explanation for doing so because fictional space can be tricky, and I feel it’s better to cooperate in that space: when you said “there was no warning or aiming of the shot, it was wild” I feel like that situation could feel less absolute in your player’s mind (and mine) than it was in yours.
On the pag 32 quote, the sentence (as I stated above), starts with: “When the PC suffers a consequence…”
If a consequence is on the PC depends on the fiction: in that sense, a PC can only resist if he can, because it means that the PC is the subject (and usually, but not always, the fictional instigator) of that consequence (and not just the mechanical instigator).
Also, as an aside, the GM doesn’t choose directly the attribute for resistance: you resist with the attribute tied to the type of consequence the PC is suffering.
MisterTia86 I think we’re more or less on the same page. I read your example of resisting as trying to change the fact that the guard shot the falcon or at least shot at the falcon. That’s something I don’t think resistance can change, as you say, RAW.
But overall, i agree with your interpretation myself, it’s just a few in my group don’t and I have had difficulty showing where the rules clearly support my position. Particularly regarding resisting a consequence that a cohort suffers.
Regarding the attribute to resist with, I think we’re saying the same thing. I’m really just parroting what page 32 says “The GM chooses the attribute, based on the nature of consequences.” Which I also take to mean the fiction determines what attribute to roll, but the GM is final arbiter if there’s disagreement.
Oliver Granger Hey, if you told the player the consequence was his falcon getting shot before he rolled, then yea, it’s all on him. That was part of the roll, and you can’t roll twice.
Arne Jamtgaard I flagged the guard was waving his gun about when the falcon swooped at him. But I never said that was the consequence before the roll. I rarely do since it slows down play so much. I just looked at the fiction and followed through on a threat after the roll turned up consequences.
Oliver Granger
Consider the fact that “the nature of consquences” might change if a player decides to resist.
In your Falcon example the nature switched from the bullet hit squarely, to the bullet didn’t hit squarely (which still retains the guards action of firing the gun and still leaves wiggle room for reduced harm . i.e a graze or a near miss).
And the player explaining what their character does to resist gives the GM more to work with when they decided which resistance attribute to use; rules don’t play into it; that’s just keeping the channels of collaboration open at the table so there is less likely to be disagreement or resentment over rulings.
As far as consequences that can’t be resisted l feel like they sit better with players when the source of those consequences are forshadowed. Invisible traps will always suck.
Omari Brooks yeah I agree, good foreshadowing is vital.
Resistance is not like an action roll though. It’s the opposite. The GM looks at the consequence and says this is how to resist. The GM doesn’t consider what the PC does, the players consider what addressing the consequence requires. Will resisting require a fight against being deceived or to understand, a fight against mental strain or to maintain willpower, or a fight against physical injury or strain?
In the Hound-falcon case, I considered the speed and wildness of the shot. It’s not a planned snipe. It’s not a speedy but perceivable sword swipe or even a sneaky back stab. It’s an unexpected gun discharge. At best, that’s a reflexive dodge or a roll with the blow. That’s why I said it required a Prowess resist.
I’ve played it the other way, basing the attribute on how players say they resist, and it just led to players relying on one attribute for all consequences, finagling their fiction cleverly, which got old pretty quick.
In this group, they way I reduce discontent is to make consistent, principle-based judgement calls. If I don’t, then they grumble. That’s why I’m so keen to find out what the rules require, because this group is comforted knowing they’re being abided by in a consistent way.
Two more core principles from the RAW to consider (from the aptly-titled “GM Principles”, pg. 193):
– Be a fan of the PCs.
– Hold on lightly.
Spending stress is one way a player can mechanically express what is important to them in the fiction and in the game. In your example, a player who wants to spend the valuable resource of stress to avoid having their PC’s hawk shot from the air from a freak wild shot is indicating that they strongly prefer to keep the hawk as part of the story (or at least not have their hawk go out like a punk. 😉 )
Taking the two core principles above into account with the other rules referenced in this thread, it seems to me that the closest adherence to both RAW and RAI would allow a resistance roll. Meanwhile, you as a GM now have a valuable bit of information you can use to make a future Devil’s Bargain quite diabolical: E.g. If the PC is lining up a very important shot against the Big Bad, offer an extra die on the roll if the hawk sacrifices itself in a heroic/dramatic/cool act of distraction.
(One may argue that the “Running the Game” chapter is “more philosophy than law.” But if that is the case then the debate leads to a meta-discussion of “what counts as RAW” that rapidly becomes asymptotic. Also: Fiction first!)
Gart Larissa thanks. Interesting points. But I feel the problem here is not with the specific situation and how I ran it, but the underlying issue that surfaced in that situation: that my group couldn’t agree how to interpret the rules. Rewinding and rejigging is useful and I do it all the time, but I don’t see it as a long-term solution whenever we hit an issue with resisting consequences. My group and I prefer to settle on how to interpret the resistance rules.
Sounds like your advocating for a) from my original post. Your principle seems to be that the players can spend stress to achieve their player goals, including letting their PC resist any consequence. That’s cool but very different to how I’ve run and played the game.
Oliver Granger wait wait 🙂
Mine was not an example of Resisting, but an example of RAW Protect (a Teamwork action): exposing yourself to a consequence intended for another character (the falcon).
Then, AFTER the consequence was on the Hound (by the use of Protect), they could Resist that shot (reducing or avoiding the harm).
Resist doesn’t change the target, Protect does (by RAW), and neither of those interrupt the action of shooting.
Protect is an important mechanical and fictional extension of the use of Resist: it’s needed because since you can only Resist consequence on your PC sometimes you want to redirect consequence not centered on your PC to save other characters (and, by doing that, you are able to Resist to them, because now they apply to you).
What I am trying to say is that the consequences which cannot be Resisted are those which are not fictionally centered on your PC and that you can’t fictionally redirect to your PC (by using Protect): this consequence are not super-common (especially since, in my opinion, you should always facilitate the use of Protection if it’s not blatantly impossible), but sometimes the fiction just makes a consequence not resistable and not protectable (see my example above with the rising water).
Is this helping?
MisterTia86 I missed you were talking about Protect. Thanks. I agree with everything you say. That’s almost exactly the way I put it to my group.
In fact, the argument that I presented in support of b) that my group found most convincing is how the Protect move is written. You can only protect a teammate from a consequence if you suffer that consequence yourself. In other words, the consequence must be directed at the PC if they are to resist it.
Oliver Granger I do not think I am taking a controversial stance to say that BitD is not a system designed to appeal to a hypothetical Rules Lawyer[1]. Based on the context you’ve patiently provided, I am not sure we are going to find a crystalline configuration of clauses that provide an answer that is both unequivocal and satisfactory for the entire table.
With that said: Though my understanding is closer to supporting (b) than (a) in the OP, I am fairly confident that what I am adovcating for is neither (a) nor (b).
Back to the core rule of resistance (‘Resistance & Armor’, pg 32):
‘When your PC suffers a consequence that you don’t like, you can choose to resist it. Just tell the GM, “No, I don’t think so. I’m resisting that.”’
I think most in this thread would agree with this rewording:
“Resistance can be rolled when a player does not like the consequence their PC is about to suffer.”
It is interesting to note that nowhere in the “Resistance & Armor” chapter (or in the entire ruleset AFAIK) does it say that the consequence has to be the result of an action roll by the same player. But I think the real source of noise, here, is a heterogeneous interpretation of the word “suffer”.
Suffer can mean both “experience” (i.e. directly) and “be subjected to” (i.e. influenced by). You can suffer from traffic when you are sitting in your car on a gridlocked freeway. You can also suffer from traffic when you are sitting at home and your pizza is delivered late. A PC experiences direct consequence when they take an arrow in the shoulder. A PC is subjected to consequence when their prized/beloved/useful hawk takes an arrow in the wing.
I argue that BitD assumes both meanings of “suffer” because BitD celebrates consequences. Consequences generate story. Consequences are a spice to be welcomed because they create dramatic tension, not a poison to be avoided because they interfere with mission optimization. (And as alluded above, stress is a resource players can use to say “I don’t want that particular spice in this bite and I am ready to pay extra to forego it.”)
Of course even if you as a GM are moved by this argument it doesn’t necessarily get you out of the current pickle at your table if some/many don’t like that particular flavor of play. But by a similar token, if you are a GM are moved by this argument, it does prompt an an examination of how you choose consequences — i.e., as a fan of the PCs and the “show” the table is creating together, what flavor are you trying to create by choosing a particular spice as a consequence?
[1] I emphatically and sincerely note that Rules Law can be an entertaining and rewarding pursuit in many game systems and I by no means consider “Rules Lawyer” a slight or slur.
(Edited for spelling, punctuation, and footnote.)
Oliver Granger So, you say “In this group, the way I reduce discontent is to make consistent, principle-based judgement calls. If I don’t, then they grumble.”
It seems to be that “a” is the easiest solution to your stated desire. If you go “b”, then there are differences of opinion like what you are trying to hassle out here.
If a character suffers a consequence (and thanks to Gart Larissa for the nuanced insight into ‘suffer’), they get to Resist.
Clear, consistent, and unlikely to be misunderstood.
Oliver Granger
“I’ve played it the other way, basing the attribute on how players say they resist, and it just led to players relying on one attribute for all consequences, finagling their fiction cleverly, which got old pretty quick.”
Got old for who? Were the players complaining about this? Players gonna play. They are not going to use their worst attributes/skills if they can avoid it; that’s universal across all games not just Blades. That’s player skill to twist the fiction to give them the best odds.
“In this group, they way I reduce discontent is to make consistent, principle-based judgement calls. If I don’t, then they grumble. That’s why I’m so keen to find out what the rules require, because this group is comforted knowing they’re being abided by in a consistent way.”
You made it sound that they weren’t happy anyways. Some of the rules in Blades a vague and open for interpretation. You have to decide if it’s better to be consistent with working with the players or be consistently at odds with what they think the intent of the game is. I’m sure the Hound would appreciate a consistent way to protect their Falcon without literally being right next to it and feel empowered to actually take risks no matter the mechanics involved.
I think I should clarify my point about consistency. My group likes consistency across time yes, but also internal consistency.
For example, Protect requires the consequence to be directed at the PC if they are to resist it instead of their teammate. It’s more consistent to say: that’s because you can only resist consequences directed at the PC. It’s less consistent to say: but in all other cases a PC can resist any consequence they’re subject to/influenced by without requiring to actually face it themselves.
That’s why in the end I think my group agreed that a) is the less consistent approach and we’ve agreed to b).
That’s why I feel, Omari Brooks, your last dilemma is false. Working with my players means working with them to understand the intent of the game. Seeking internal consistency is one way they make the game enjoyable for them. My dictating or acquiescing should be a last resort; they’d rather I make a principled decision in line with everyone’s shared understanding of the intent of the rules and the fiction. Demanding bunch I know, but I love ‘em.
Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I appreciate your perspectives. I think I’ve mined this quarry enough for now.
YMMV but I’ve had great success using a)
In addition to the “be a fan” and “hold on lightly” principles mentioned above, there is also the principle that “the rules don’t distinguish between events happening in the present and past” (paraphrasing from the Flashbacks section).
With those three principles in mind, it seems reasonable to allow a player to resist, specifying that they anticipated the danger to their pet and pushed the gun in a different direction as the guard fell.
Removing the player’s option to resist consequences from their rolls because the effect isn’t centred on them seems like it doesn’t fit RAW or RAI.
Jared Hunt, sounds like you’re just advocating for Protect. That’s the first thing I offered when this came up.
But Protect requires the player to describe how they intervene. And in the case I mentioned, the group couldn’t find a satisfying way for the hound to intervene in the fiction. The hound was in a tree a distance away shooting the guard with a bow.
So I don’t think I’m removing their option to resist, I’m just asking them to follow the rules as we agreed that Protect requires.
Oliver Granger
” My dictating or acquiescing should be a last resort; they’d rather I make a principled decision in line with everyone’s shared understanding of the intent of the rules and the fiction.”
Is that what you got from what I wrote? I’m advocating truly working with the players INSTEAD of dictating that their obvious fictional spotlighting is irrelevant.
For example if a player is making obvious overtures that they are willing to risk harm and stress to protect their animal companion, the GM could suggest a custom ability, which costs a precious player upgrade, to trigger the Protect move from a distance when their pet is in danger. In a world with giant demon whales, ghosts, and vampires it doesn’t seem too far of a stretch for a PC to take on some kind of stigmata to their own bodies keep their animal companions in fighting form.
Omari Brooks thanks. They’re good suggestions. I can see you’re thinking about what my players may want and how to give them it. It also sounds like you think I should prioritise their enjoyment over rules consistency, if it comes to that. These are both bigger, broader conversations and I don’t want to have them here.
My aim was just to focus here on how to interpret the resistance rule. And I feel I have done that sufficiently now.
I actually agree with something said earlier. “Your falcon gets shot” isn’t directly a consequence listed in raw. Its not a lost opportunity, or a worse effect/position, nor is it the PC suffering harm for his action.
I feel like the action roll itself was made wrong. The hound rolls Command on behalf of the falcon; because he’s rolling on behalf of the falcon, the falcon takes any consequences. But in your example, the falcon was already distracting successfully, and it was the hound failing a new roll. In this scenerio, id have picked a consequence directed at the hound rather than his cohort.
Also remember that cohorts do have harm tracks just like PCs, so the falcon wouldn’t be dead unless it was a desperate roll.
As for resisting. I let my players describe how, and based on that and the fiction, I let them roll resistance. If theres no fictional way to resist, then theyre out of luck.
In this scenario, despite me not agreeing with the consequence, it would be a protect. They would describe how they resist.
Prowess: I wrestle with the guard and take the bullet for my Falcon, it winces me through the side of my gut.
Insight: Flashback to teaching my falcon how to play dead when a bullet seemingly hits it.
Resolve: nothing in fiction will happen because of sheer willpower here.
Antimatter
First, harm to the falcon is clearly possible from the fictional situation. It doesn’t matter who rolled. Two, if it’s a consequence from the Hound’s roll, it clearly fits the scope of a Complication. I really don’t see the problem you’re pointing at all.
You can run your resistance rolls as you like. But if you let players roll the attribute based on how they describe their PC resisting, you’re not playing by the rules. Which is fine, but not what I’m interested in.
We considered Protect as an option but the Hound couldn’t describe a way to intervene. The Hound was too far away from the guard and the falcon and the gun shot was too fast.
Complication: This consequence represents trouble, mounting danger, or a new threat. The GM might introduce an immediate problem that results from the action right now: the room catches fire, you’re disarmed, the crew takes +1 heat from evidence or witnesses, you lose status with a faction, the target evades you and now it’s a chase, reinforcements arrive, etc
I wouldn’t call “your bird gets shot” trouble; mounting danger or a new threat. What you have ruled is the harm consequence but you applied it to the bird rather than applying it to the person rolling.
If he ws rolling for the bird, then by all means, shoot it. But he wasnt rolling for the bird to do anything, and he didnt group action with the bird. If his bird was another player, and the other player got shot as a consequence, that would be a very bad practice of consequence, so you wouldn’t do it. Same as the bird cohort.
I dont understand how youve come from asking a question to harsh backlash when people try to help you out.
Antimatter
“If his bird was another player, and the other player got shot as a consequence, that would be a very bad practice of consequence, so you wouldn’t do it.”
I think indirect consequences cause more problems than they solve.
At bare minimum GMs can avoid most issues by taking the GM action “Telegraph trouble before it starts” if indirect consequences are a possibility.
pg. 191
“Without telegraphing the trouble and giving context to the action, the outcomes can seem murky. You might feel like you have to “invent” a consequence out of the blue when they roll a 1-3 or 4/5. If you strongly imply the consequences before the action roll, though, then it’s obvious what the consequences should be”
So a GM can frame a situation like: “Character X, is in danger of getting harmed right now, what do you do?” OR “The brawl is intense and you’re not sure if you can get a clear shot on the target without hitting character X, what do you do?” And the player can make an informed decision without feeling blindsided or cheated.
Thanks for trying to help, I do appreciate it. I was clear about what help I was seeking and I’m not clear how what you’re saying relates to my OP question. Are you saying that the resistance roll issue isn’t a problem because a PC or cohort should only receive a consequence from a roll they themselves make or from a follow-up from such roll?
I mean the rules already say when an NPC is a big enough threat, they can take the initiative and just brute force a PC to resist things. So the GM can just say “Well they’re faster and better than you and they just stab you through the heart. Want to resist?”, without any player rolling the dice.
Of course foreshadowing a key, but let’s assume that possible threats and threat levels were well described in the fiction. Are you saying that a cohort shouldn’t be harmed unless it’s from a roll they made or as a follow-up from a foreshadowing of such a roll that nobody countered?