4
\$\begingroup\$

S&V p. 35 details using resistance rolls to reduce consequences/harm suffered, and indicates a successful roll reduces the consequence by one level. Similarly, the armour rules on p. 37 also indicate that harm is reduced by one step if armour is used.

But on p.36, it states: "As a general note, we suggest that you reduce consequences by two levels."

I understand these are dials that can be adjusted, but why is the default assumption that consequences are reduced two levels when all the examples through the book seem to refer to only one level? Is 'two levels' a misprint?

\$\endgroup\$
7
\$\begingroup\$

I don't think "two levels" is a misprint. That paragraph ends with, "This seems to hit a daring space opera vibe, but may not be appropriate for grittier games." The implication is that you can go grittier by using one-level resistance.

Obviously, you're right that the example describes one-level resistance. I think this is partly because most or all of the examples in Scum, including this one, are just the examples from Blades with appropriate adjustments for genre. Of course the original uses one-level resistance as a default.

The same applies to the armor example. Since armor is described as an alternative to resistance, I'd say that if you want two-level resistance to be your default, that's what armor should do as well.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ That's a very good point Dave, they probably started with the Blades document and updated it, but didn't make that core change for S&V clear throughout. \$\endgroup\$ – Simon K Sep 11 at 9:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.