I don’t care which action rating players use to frame or justify their actions. I don’t change my judgment of consequences or outcomes based on which action rating the player chooses. Action ratings are a tool for players to help guide their descriptions, which are what I care about.

Warning: Hot Takes

This is part of my GM’ing style. I’ve played and talked with other GM’s who do change consequences and outcomes based on which action rating the player chooses. That style is equally valid. If you are a player, you might not discern a difference unless you slow down and discuss the roll in detail.

You might see this as pedantry existing only in theory. I agree, it is a subtle distinction often invisible to players. The mindset is more important to me: the ruthless dedication to the fiction over mechanics and labels.

Definitions

• Actions: what the character is doing in the fiction.
• Intent: what the player hopes will happen as a result of their character’s actions.
• Concrete descriptions: the words players use to impart how they envision their character’s actions, and their own intent.

How did I get here?

Running Blades — especially one-shots and pickup groups — action ratings often pulled players towards mechanics-first thinking. Players asked me which actions I thought were appropriate, when I was willing to accept any reasonable pitch from them. They hemmed and hawed, asking the group “is this action X or Y?” like there was a right answer. Occasionally a player wanted to push action ratings like a button, without describing what they were doing in the fiction.

I’m used to redirecting and handling these problems (a topic for another post), but it does become grating after a while. I realized I judge consequences and outcomes exclusively on concrete descriptions.

Analysis: Action ratings

What action ratings do

• Represent a mix of approach and proficiency. I find it hard to avoid this conclusion when a higher action rating improves your baseline chances for success.
• Speed up play by pre-negotiating part of the player’s dice pool.
• Signal what kinds of approaches are common for player characters. However, players from some play cultures interpret this as “the only things I can do”.
• Prompt/suggest different actions and intent — and corresponding concrete descriptions.
• Label concrete descriptions of actions and/or intent with a mechanic.
• Guide the concrete descriptions of players’ actions and intent.

Caveats

The action rating needs to match the player’s concrete descriptions enough to be believable. If I don’t understand how the player is using Tinker to fight someone, I’ll start asking clarifying questions. If it feels like the player is weaseling, I’ll ask them not to, and to use a different action rating or approach.

What action ratings don’t do

Action ratings don’t change the consequences or outcomes after the player has already described what they are doing.

When the player says “I rifle through the cabinets, armoire, and desk for valuables. Papers, gold, drugs, whatever. I’m taking my time.”, I don’t change the outcomes (what they find), or the consequences (discovery, revealing an unwelcome truth) if they choose Study instead of Survey.

If the player decides to Attune instead, they need to revise their descriptions to detail how they search the echoes of the ghost field for spooky stuff!

In Practice

Here’s what this style of play looks like:

1. The player describes a risky action, in general terms.
2. The GM calls for a roll.
3. The player gives a concrete description of their action.
4. The GM sets position and effect.
5. The GM and player come to a consensus on their approach, position/effect, and desired outcomes.
6. The GM states the possible consequences, if they aren’t obvious to the player from context.
7. The player rolls.
8. The GM frames successes, and the player narrates the details.
9. The GM describes any consequences.

The player can choose an action rating anytime during steps 3 to 7. It won’t change the consequences or outcomes, as long as the action rating matches their descriptions.

The player can revise their descriptions anytime before the roll. The GM can opt to change the possible consequences, and adjust position to reflect that.

The important bit is the players and GM are exchanging descriptions, and applying whichever mechanics are appropriate afterwards. Of course, players might have a particular action rating in mind when they start describing — probably one they have two or three dots in — but it is their responsibility to offer concrete descriptions of actions for which that rating is believable.

Why play this way?

To get closer to the fiction (play worlds, not rules) and escape the tyranny of action ratings, skills, attributes, and modifiers.

Compost

Action roll as uber move: PbtA “To do it, do it.”

eyes, voice, skin, face, arms, frame, gaze, hands, build, smile, laugh, fingers, feet,

garb (not): armor, shield, adventuring gear, pack, bandolier garb: hat, shawl, furs, leathers, cloak, boots, sandals, belt, bare