Anyone else seen this tendency to add Strain damage via Threat from checks that don't seem like they would add strain? I've seen a few games where the player makes some check, and it's usually a check done to try to figure out some non-essential detail in non-structured time, and they get Threat which immediately is applied as Strain. I feel like the threat should most often be used to create something that is commensurate with the Task/Situation/ Urgency.

How do you use Threat for checks that aren't nothing, but also aren't "Stop the Bridge!!"or some other imminent catastrophe?

Increase time required. Increase cost. Break tool. Draw someone's attention. Pick lock but trip alarm. Persuade, charm, deceive target but told to F off and never come back.

Actually, that is my go-to. I can easily chalk up strain to "You made a Mechanics check and fixed the thing, but bonked your head on the way out of the hatch." It adds flavour, and prevents the game from bogging down trying to explain 1 or 2 threat here and there. They aren't inconsequential, as they can add up over time. But more than 2 and I'll definitely come up with something more inventive: to me, 3+ represents a scenario-changing challenge, a mini-Despair.

Good opportunity in a social check to have an NPC hook the PCs up but say "you owe me", and slap some obligation on em.

12 minutes ago, whafrog said:

Actually, that is my go-to. I can easily chalk up strain to "You made a Mechanics check and fixed the thing, but bonked your head on the way out of the hatch." It adds flavour, and prevents the game from bogging down trying to explain 1 or 2 threat here and there. They aren't inconsequential, as they can add up over time. But more than 2 and I'll definitely come up with something more inventive: to me, 3+ represents a scenario-changing challenge, a mini-Despair.

I've seen players become check-averse though when they feel Strain is a likely consequence of getting some threat. Although I have to admit I love that bonking your head thing I feel I personally take strain every time I get under a vehicle and start wrenching.

You should see me installing a CPU, even after tripple digit times, I still take strain when doing it each and every time. I guess my player picked me some talent which causes strain and decreases CPU temperatures via perfect thermal paste application or something like that. Either way, it's exhausting. ?

Besides, strain is easily recovered, so I don't see the issue, just spend a few advantages on it and manage the ebb and flows of your checks. My pilot is burning up to 8 strain or so per turn. Because, why not?

32 minutes ago, whafrog said:

Actually, that is my go-to. I can easily chalk up strain to "You made a Mechanics check and fixed the thing, but bonked your head on the way out of the hatch." It adds flavour, and prevents the game from bogging down trying to explain 1 or 2 threat here and there. They aren't inconsequential, as they can add up over time. But more than 2 and I'll definitely come up with something more inventive: to me, 3+ represents a scenario-changing challenge, a mini-Despair.

Same here. Or, "You did it, but you were really stressed out that you wouldn't. Your nerves are shot." Something like that. For a threat or two on a relatively small check, it's not worth slowing down the game to come up with something inventive.

51 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

Increase time required. Increase cost. Break tool. Draw someone's attention. Pick lock but trip alarm. Persuade, charm, deceive target but told to F off and never come back.

That seems like you just gave the definition of threat.

57 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Anyone else seen this tendency to add Strain damage via Threat from checks that don't seem like they would add strain? I've seen a few games where the player makes some check, and it's usually a check done to try to figure out some non-essential detail in non-structured time, and they get Threat which immediately is applied as Strain. I feel like the threat should most often be used to create something that is commensurate with the Task/Situation/ Urgency.

How do you use Threat for checks that aren't nothing, but also aren't "Stop the Bridge!!"or some other imminent catastrophe?

If it's "non-essential" then I wouldn't make them roll for it. "Using the microwave" shouldn't require a roll, unless maybe it's in zero-G during a firefight and they want to mod the microwave to cook their hot pocket evenly without it still being frozen (or molten lava) in the middle.

1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

I've seen players become check-averse though when they feel Strain is a likely consequence of getting some threat.

I know what you mean, sometimes my players seem to think we can "play" but not actually put their PCs in difficult situations. However:

• The first rule is, there shouldn't be a roll if there are no consequences, either positive or negative.
• The second rule is, it's not up to them.

If they want to pick up someone at the bar, but don't want to roll Charm in case they get some Threat, then their heart isn't in it. The narrative equivalent is: "You spend most of the night in a fruitless quest, and wake up next to some troll. Nothing in your life has changed."

But if they actually want to achieve something, they have to take risks. And you get to decide, not them, how much risk what they want to achieve involves.

Those who have seen Office Space can see how using a simple machine can cause immense strain.

3 hours ago, panpolyqueergeek said:

If it's "non-essential" then I wouldn't make them roll for it. "Using the microwave" shouldn't require a roll, unless maybe it's in zero-G during a firefight and they want to mod the microwave to cook their hot pocket evenly without it still being frozen (or molten lava) in the middle.

Yeah and the title is a bit sensational but there are times in games I have played in where the GM calls for some roll for something that isn't trivial but also isn't a dangerous situation.

I agree with all of the suggestions on spending threat/advantage that have been mentioned so far.

That said, no one has said this yet and I feel it's a valid point to bring up: You don't always need to spend threat or advantage. Sometimes a roll is just pass/fail.

Getting hung up on spending all of the results on every roll can really bog down the game. It causes friction and fatigue and can change rolling dice from fun to a chore. It often ends up exactly where you are, which is you just apply it as strain/healing in order to keep the game moving.

Requiring a roll means the task taken has some sort of risk involved. Mental or physical strain are perfectly reasonable costs if nothing else fits the situation.

6 hours ago, ddbrown30 said:

I agree with all of the suggestions on spending threat/advantage that have been mentioned so far.

That said, no one has said this yet and I feel it's a valid point to bring up: You don't always need to spend threat or advantage. Sometimes a roll is just pass/fail.

Getting hung up on spending all of the results on every roll can really bog down the game. It causes friction and fatigue and can change rolling dice from fun to a chore. It often ends up exactly where you are, which is you just apply it as strain/healing in order to keep the game moving.

I think this is a great point because I assume that since the Advantage/Threat are there they have to be used.

3 hours ago, Concise Locket said:

Requiring a roll means the task taken has some sort of risk involved. Mental or physical strain are perfectly reasonable costs if nothing else fits the situation.

I agree with this but I would say that sometimes in games I played in myself, me the other players also would forgo a roll for that very reason, usually because we knew the GM would just reveal the thing or steer us that way anyway. If it is a serious (called for) roll then it's not really an issue and you expect the risk, but with a dice-happy GM you can get characters burned down to nothing and nothing has happened in the game session. I don't mind losing Strain when it makes sense, but having it get burned off for no reason makes losing Strain lose its impact when you have a legit situation.

Or: I don't argue with him cause I'm low on Strain as it is.

I saw a friend do that once.

I should also add that that same GM was notorious for forgetting or not wanting to do heal checks for Strain.

Our hyper-specialized mechanic once failed to mod the ship's new entertainment center (holo tank) in a rather spectacular way. The GM was bored and flipped a point to upgrade the check. She managed to not only fail the easy check, she got a despair and blew up our entertainment system. It's been over a year, and whenever her character offers to, you know, repair something we all give her crap about the exploded VCR.

19 hours ago, Archlyte said:

I should also add that that same GM was notorious for forgetting or not wanting to do heal checks for Strain.

You should always be rolling to recover Strain at the end of an encounter. Doesn't matter if the GM doesn't want to do it.

2 hours ago, Concise Locket said:

You should always be rolling to recover Strain at the end of an encounter. Doesn't matter if the GM doesn't want to do it.

Yeah and I would remind him a lot but it's one of those things where people just want to go with the flow I guess.

I tend to use the threats to alter the narrative flow and add challenges and spice to the encounter.

My players tend to opt for the strain . . . usually in a boisterous quick outburst "Imtakingthestrainthistime!"

As a GM I find that my players regularly forgo most of the +strain talents in their respective trees in lieu of the flashier talents and end up burning through their strain like wildfire once they start activating those actions all by themselves. Even with post encounter recovery, my party is very good at using all their strain with very little help from me. There have also been numerous times that, for the sake of the narrative, I've had to hold back on adding more.

Keep the effects to scale, too. If you really, truly have to make a roll to use the microwave then the advantage/threat simply lets you know how well the cooking process went. Lots of threat? You overcooked the thing and it's now dry and unpleasant. Lots of advantage? Done to perfection! I suppose that if you wanted to be comedic about it you could apply a setback/boost to their next (meaningful) check to represent the morale effects of that terrible/amazing food.

23 minutes ago, Garran said:

You overcooked the thing and it's now dry and unpleasant.

...or it gives you gas...

...which causes Strain...

I love that this actually got to the point of talking about microwave cooking, lol.

I had a thread in which I talked about giving PC's Strain for having another PC constantly berating them. This was an unpopular solution with the forums, so I would like to ask you guys what you would not give strain for? A few examples if you would, thank you.