Resisting incoming gunfire with Insight – “I spot the assassin and duck around the corner just in time”. Being a weasel or playing to one’s strengths (assuming the character in question has a better Insight than Prowess)?
Resisting incoming gunfire with Insight – “I spot the assassin and duck around the corner just in time”.
Resisting incoming gunfire with Insight – “I spot the assassin and duck around the corner just in time”.
.
I think that’s fine.
I’m really interested in this too as this is one of the few instances in the book where there’s actually kind of specific rules given. Page 11 has:
The attribute you roll depends on the consequence:
Insight: Consequences from deception or understanding.
Prowess: Consequences from physical strain or injury.
Resolve: Consequences from mental strain or willpower
Which to me I interpret as the resistance roll is based on the root of the failed roll causing it, or if there isn’t one by the player the it would be the root of whatever the “opposing” npc would roll. Like your npc assassin would roll hunt hypothetically most likely so they need to resist with the attribute root of hunt (Insight)
However like I said this is kind of different from almost everything else in blades. And even directly before that specific portion the book says
“Describe how the character resists, then roll using one of the PC’s attributes.” which just sounds like standard blades narrative decision making.
Using this logic, couldn’t the player resist just about everything using Insight?
Will Scott I think the slippery slope argument is a fair point, and reinforces the more concrete breakdown Chris McDonald’s posted above, but at the same time the whole thing does seem counter to the whole “the player decides what they roll” part of Blades. As always, the table’s going to be the final judge but I’d think if GM and player were at odds, something like “you can roll Insight because you’ve got more dice in it, I get that, but it’s going to have limited effect” would be an ok compromise.
Also, a player who’s blatantly pushing for one attribute to cover all resistances is pretty obviously being a weasel. I don’t see a problem if the situation and explanation fits. I also don’t see a problem with adhering to the guidelines for resistance rolls, since you can just as easily explain “seeing a threat and ducking behind cover” as Prowess, focusing on the “are you physically nimble enough to take cover” part of the action, not “are you perceptive enough to see danger”.
Adam Schwaninger Will Scott so far I’ve been going fiction first with tolerance limits. The players can propose anything. That’s just the rules but if something is sketchy I’ll make them sell me on it. If they can’t sell me they usually can’t sell the rest of the group either and waiver themselves and realize they were gaming it a bit themselves. It’s a bit honor system and peer enforcement but I think it keeps the rolls more honest. For resistances though I definitely think the lines are a bit more blurred.
I can also see where sticking to the guidelines may be simplified, may not be optimized to your particular character, but it’s also a time-saving feature and reduces creative fatigue. It’s easy to pick it apart as an individual item. In play, I can’t say I’ve ever wanted to dally over a resistance roll’s fiction as much as a player’s proactive choices.
“It’s scary. Roll Resolve.”
“It’s tricky. Roll Insight.”
“It’s sharp. Roll Prowess.”
This is interesting, I’ve had some very weasel-y resistance roll attempts before. and to me, that seems borderline. I’d probably allow it though.
I kind of agree with what Chris McDonald was mentioning as well. I always forget that resistance (as stated?) is based on the consequence and not how the Player describes resisting. Mostly, this is do to the “Ask them what action they use” I do 90% of the time bleeding over into “How do you resist this?” Which is where I’ve gotten most of the “weasel attempts”
Either way, its definitely one of the “things to learn through play” for the players. The “it makes sense” at the table thing was extremely mixed at the beginning in my group, because everyone was just agreeing and doing that sort of Highschool Presentation thing where no one questions or critiques another players input. (I think we’re past that though, and the group knows when something doesn’t quite fit w/ a resist anymore)
I tend to play fast and loose and let players pick the resistance. But I’d ask if that is really what happened in the fiction. Did they just come around the corner or were they in an open plaza? Did they actually see the assassin or was the first thing they heard the shot? Assuming this was a consequence to an action roll, what action were they taking? If the action was survey to scan the streets for an assassin, then this seems totally fair. If it was a skirmish with the assassin’s decoy, then not so much.
If it were my game, I’d call weasel on this. The resistance comes from “ducking around the corner just in time”, which is more based on reflexes and agility than thinking cleverly. Sound like Prowess to me.
I won’t say I’m hard and fast on the resistances, but I tend to go pretty basic with them — if the consequence comes from a physical source, 99% of the time it’s resisted with Prowess, for example. I tell the players which resistance to roll if they want to resist things, but occasionally one of them has been able to talk me into a different roll(though they usually agree with me, and for one player it doesn’t matter because all of his resistances are the same :P).
I would not call “Weasel” if the reason they got shot was “being surprised.” I would probably let them reduce the injury (with Prowess), or avoid being surprised completely (with Insight)
I could get behind that. Reduce the consequences in different ways for different resistance rolls.
This conversation reminded me of a time at my table where this happened: I had a player want to roll Insight to avoid just about everything. I basically called “weasel” in so many words, but what actually happened was: I just clarified the nature of the consequence itself when Insight didn’t make sense, since my understanding is that this iis what ultimately determines which resist rolls actually help (and to what degree)
Even if the player describes something that should be rolled with Insight, you can still insist on the “appropriate” resistance for the type of consequence if you think it’s too weasely.
“You spot them and try to duck around the corner. No need to roll insight, I’ll let you spot them without a roll. But roll prowess to see if you duck around the corner before they hit you.”