Buying Success With Consequences

[devonapple]

I've been noodling (in a few unrelated threads, here and here) about the potential value of allowing players to emulate Thaumaturgy and Evocation when they roll their mundane skills.

DFRPG already allows a character to make up the shifts of an unsuccessful roll by shifting along the Time Chart (each step up adds a shift). For example, picking a specific lock would normally have taken a few seconds, but the player rolled badly, so this time it takes a few minutes instead (during which interruptions can happen, plot advances, villains run away, that sort of thing). You give up time and potential agency, the plot rolls on without you - maybe not a lot, but enough. Sort of like "taking 20" in D&D 3.x. Spellcasters, too, can skip scenes during a prohibitively exhausting Thaumaturgy ritual, giving up narrative contributions in exchange for more sure success on their ritual.

However, spellcasters occasionally trigger Backlash when trying to control their magic, and they have the option to shore up the spell by taking Stress and/or Consequences. Some casters have even built in an automatic "sacrifice" requirement into the Control rolls of their Rote spells, meaning that whenever that spell gets cast, they automatically take an x-point consequence to help power the spell.

What about mundane skills? What if people were able to shore up a bad roll, not only by tagging an Aspect, but by taking a straight Consequence?

Example 1:
A hero is pinned down by a hail of enemy gunfire (enemis made a Block versus Attack, using their Guns skills). Hero wants to shoot the escaping villain, and makes a Guns check. It is two points shy of breaking the Block, and for sake of argument, he has no Fate Points.

How game-breaking would it be if he was allowed to take a 2-point Consequence (Shot in the Arm) narrated as "he braves the gunfire to line up his shot," in order to add 2 shifts to his Guns roll, effectively breaking the Block and allowing a successful Guns hit on the villain?

Example 2:
A spy is dropping down an air vent to sneak up on his enemies. He makes the Athletics check, but misses the Stealth check by 4 shifts. The player, not wanting to be discovered at this time, opts to take a 4-point Consequence "Torn Ankle" to reflect that the spy absorbs and rolls with the fall, but makes no noise other than a quiet snap. He limps painfully but quietly along to the next checkpoint, for the moment, undetected.

Edit: Negative Aspects
I completely omitted the bit about using Negative Aspects to balance out positive Aspects, such as:

A) taking a phantom Consequence on an item you acquired with a barely-failed Resources roll, or
B) the thugs you hired with your pitiful Contacts check DO manage to show up, but they have the Aspect "Squirrelly," "Good Help is Hard to Find," or "Completely Uncommitted to This Client."

This tactic came up in the Summoning thread awhile back: the concept being that you could shortcut your summoning spell by intentionally accepting lower-quality Nevernever creatures with hidden agendas, lowered competence, or simple lack of commitment.

[Sanctaphrax]

I like the idea, at least in theory. Two problems come to mind:

1. People with Recovery powers could probably abuse this.
2. If this could be applied to attacks, then any character could "go nova" for massive damage.

[devonapple]

1. People with Recovery powers could probably abuse this.
2. If this could be applied to attacks, then any character could "go nova" for massive damage.

1. Yes, Recovery powers would probably have to be adjudicated specially. On the one hand, it can be fun to see the Wolverine type get chewed to hell, even though we know it is only temporary. On the other hand, yeah - serious abuse potential. Even so, Recovery powers can only soak so many Consequences per conflict/scene, so someone who foolishly spends them to boost rolls will still run out, and could can still be Taken Out.

::counts hands:: I think I'm inclined to give it a try if the opportunity comes up. Nobody in my game has Recovery powers - just NPCs, so they would be self-hobbling themselves for the benefit of being a greater nuisance to the players.

2. No, we shouldn't give every character the benefits of a mini "Death curse." I would insist there be:
A) a legitimate skill roll deficit to make up, not just an attempt to do something outrageously damaging (that is already a spellcaster option).
B) a narratively plausible reason that taking the Consequence will translate into success, and
C) no more than one Consequence at a time

[Haru]

I like the idea, it can really translate to some epic scenes, I suppose.

To take the recovery powers out, you can just declare them ineffective on such consequences, or at least not as effective as they could be, because those consequences are more plot devices than "normal" consequences.
For example, they could heal faster but they can't be cleared midscene.
Or the character has to take more severe consequences, in order to pay this off. For example a character with inhuman toughness would have to take a medium consequence to get the bonus of a mild consequence. Supernatural toughness: severe consequence for a mild bonus. Same with toughness powers, probably.


I wouldn't worry so much about anyone going nova, after the "safeguards" proposed by devonapple are applied. You could even say, that it is not only allowed to take only one consequence at a time and it has to be the lowest possible consequence. So if you need 1 shift you can't take a severe consequence to blast everyone to ashes, you have to take a mild consequence. And if you don't take out your opponent, he has a squishy new consequence to play with

Another question would be, if you can inflict consequences on yourself to add a bonus to a friend. Like someone has the rare opportunity to put a denarien in a grapple against a wall, and he tells his knight of the cross buddy to impale him, but he would have to go through the first guy in order to hit the denarien effectively, so he accepts a consequence of "gapping wound" to give the knight the opportunity to kill the denarien.

[Tedronai]

I like the idea, it can really translate to some epic scenes, I suppose.

To take the recovery powers out, you can just declare them ineffective on such consequences, or at least not as effective as they could be, because those consequences are more plot devices than "normal" consequences.
For example, they could heal faster but they can't be cleared midscene.
Or the character has to take more severe consequences, in order to pay this off. For example a character with inhuman toughness would have to take a medium consequence to get the bonus of a mild consequence. Supernatural toughness: severe consequence for a mild bonus. Same with toughness powers, probably.

I really don't think that that's necessary.  Consequences are a resource, and the purpose of recovery powers is to subsidize the cost of using that resource.

Another question would be, if you can inflict consequences on yourself to add a bonus to a friend. Like someone has the rare opportunity to put a denarien in a grapple against a wall, and he tells his knight of the cross buddy to impale him, but he would have to go through the first guy in order to hit the denarien effectively, so he accepts a consequence of "gapping wound" to give the knight the opportunity to kill the denarien.

Certainly seems flavourful, given comparable safeguards against 'nova' actions.

[Haru]

I really don't think that that's necessary.  Consequences are a resource, and the purpose of recovery powers is to subsidize the cost of using that resource.

Hmm, you have a point. A guy with recovery could keep standing in the line of fire and soak a few hits, before he needs to take cover, deliberately using up his "free" consequences to get a little more done than Joe average. You're right, it pretty much cancels itself out, and this is probably one of the perks of having a recovery power. There are stunts as well, that provide more mild consequences, but those are probably fine, too.

Certainly seems flavourful, given comparable safeguards against 'nova' actions.

Sure, I would apply the same safeguards that are in place, if you do the action yourself, the only thing that is changed is, that the person performing the action is not the one that is taking the hit, because it would no fit the story.

[devonapple]

it has to be the lowest possible consequence. So if you need 1 shift you can't take a severe consequence to blast everyone to ashes, you have to take a mild consequence.

The rules somewhat cover this already - if you have to soak 2 stress, but can only stay in the fight by taking a 4-point (or 6-point!) Consequence, you "wasted" those points worth of stress (from a strict point of view).

I'd handle this situation similarly, insisting that the player only gets to make up the difference for a roll, so if he needs 2 shifts, but ONLY has a 4-shift Consequence slot, he still only gets the benefit of the 2 shifts needed to make the roll (extra shifts are wasted).  So one is motivated to take a low Consequence simply because a higher Consequence nets no added benefit.

That said, I can imagine waiving that restriction if a self-sacrificing move is going to be made more cinematic/epic/entertaining by removing the cap. And that will be a function of the player/table's role-playing on a per-incident basis.

[Haru]

That was pretty much, what I meant, yeah.