@John_Harper I tried to find an errata or a previous post, but I couldn’t: I apologize if this has been asked before.
The example at page 176 for the Skirmish Desperate action suggests a level 2 harm as a consequence.
Is that an error?
Because otherwise I’m starting to think that maybe I should rethink how I apply consequences in my game. I always assumed that you can apply on or more consequence of the same level as an outcome, and that, by default, an action that suggests milder consequences implies a more favourable position.
I had asked the question a few years ago on the old G+ : https://bitd.gplusarchive.online/2017/12/26/hi-all-25/
No answer from the author himself, but the TLDR is that, in this case, it should have been precised that if you inflict several consequences on the same roll, those consequences can be of a lower level. So the level 2 harm for a Desperate position probably means that this is only one of several consequences.
And of course:
and that, by default, an action that suggests milder consequences implies a more favourable position.
This is entirely right, it’s the definition of “Position”.
I know that you can lower the consequences if there are more of them (even though it’s assumed that you can absolutely choose multiple consequence at the same level for that position).
The example just seems weird because there are examples with multiple consequences (all at the same level) that are clearly written (Iike the “Complication+Desperate Position” at Risky for Tinker, pag 180) while the example under Skirmish seems written in a totally different and less defined way.
Yeah, that example is unclear. It should just say “level 3 harm” to keep it simple.
Or you could imagine that there’s an additional consequence happening, but not specified (as you guessed). I think the idea in the example is reduced effect (the PC doesn’t hurt the attacker).