That hits the nail pretty much on the head and was really what I was getting at (in a very indirect manner).

Yeah, I kinda figured :)  Sorry if I took your thunder, I do like your technique of asking leading questions (which is something I do a lot at work).  But I did have this post in mind for a few days, I promise :)

I said elsewhere Consequences are justification for you're not going down right now.  As such, they don't have to be damage, they just have to be "what's new about me that says why that hit didn't put me down?"

No worries. It made me seriously rethink how ingrained expectations about RPGs are. Take getting shot in the chest. So you have this serious consequence. It could be Bullet To The Chest. But now I'm thinking more along lines of Laid Up For Few Weeks or In Critical Condition. So if someone sees you up and about, they can say, ”Aren't you laid up?" BOOM! Compel.

+Jack Gulick, I look at it on a slightly more meta level than that.  It's less a justification, in my mind, than an agreement between the GM and I that I'll get out of this one in exchange for some lasting impact.  Me being Fearful Of My Own Mortality doesn't explain how I didn't get killed, or provide justification in a physical sense of how I managed to dodge, but it does provide the level of ongoing complication that the die mechanics imposed.

This is one of the things I love about Consequences (and stress), and it took me a little while to realize just how cool it is. As long as it's fitting to the character and the fiction, it can represent anything.
Theoretically, a character can take a consequence in a car chase and in his own car. He could take the consequence "No wheels of my own". The recovery roll would either be Mechanics or Resources (or perhaps even Contacts to get a car from a buddy), and the recovery time would be how long it takes to fix, buy, or borrow a new car.

Getting another consequence for high Physique or Will sort of steps on this a little bit... but not much.

Narrative justification isn't necessarily explanation or physical justification.  It's just a "this is what happened to me instead of being taken out".  So I think we're mostly in agreement.

Wow. That was a fantastic write-up, and it thoroughly covered what I've thought about the system without coherently organizing it in my own mind.

My players must read this.

That's my goal with these.  Thanks, +Meric Moir!

Just a note, doesn't contradict you: FAE refers to damage, even naming an entire section "Ouch! Damage, Stress, and Consequences".

An interesting article! When I first read Dresden I misunderstood there to be separate consequences for the Mental, Physical and Social stress tracks and I think in the back of my mind I've been keeping them compartmentalised still. I've been thinking if someone takes a consequence from physical stress then the consequence has to be physical in nature and vice versa for mental stress.

However you make an excellent point that with a combined set of consequences this is not required, subject to an acceptable level of authenticity and table agreement. I shall have to ponder on this a bit further and consider when to apply a more ephemeral or less obvious consequence as a result of physical attacks, to mix things up a bit if nothing else.

Hate to be a naysayer but I still consider it damage. Stress, Hit Points, Consequences, Health Bars, Injuries, etc. are all mechanical means too see how far a character goes before dropping. They are all pacing systems relative to individual characters, whether you are using a story based system or a reality based system.

Just watch your players in any number of these games. They will treat Stress and Consequences in the same fashion or regular-ole hit points by asking themselves "Can I take this guy out before I go down?"

Well, yeah, they definitely are exactly what you've described means to see if you can take an enemy out before you go down.  I think that's pretty clear.

The point here is that it's not tied to "physical damage".  But then again, I've made the point recently that hit points aren't necessarily tied to physical damage either, though I think they're more explicitly tied to "damage" in D&D than stress/consequences are in Fate.

Attacks do Stress, not "damage" (unlike D&D).  That stress can take on many forms, even if it's from a weapon attack.

Am I splitting hairs?  Maybe.  And a lot of the time consequences from physical conflicts will be narratively described as physical damage.  But the value here is that it frees you up to think of consequences in situations that aren't necessarily the results of physical damage, and that's pretty cool.

I do particularly like the "Brush with mortality" style of consequence. Could be much richer for plot fodder than "Gashed chest".

Quite by coincidence though, I just read this:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/FateRPG/message/25362

Where Lenny does talk about having 'categories' of consequence and says that switching the category of a consequence could be wonky. He is talking about changing a consequence in play (changing hurt leg to woozy from painkillers in this instance).

I have said similar things in the past, but rarely so well as you did +Robert Hanz , good on ya'.

Thanks, Jake!

+Richard Bellingham, that's true, but that's also in reference to DFRPG, where you can have set physical/mental/spiritual consequences.  If switching from a physical consequence to your 'extra' mental consequence, wonkiness would indeed result.

More specifically, I'd probably interpret 'extra' consequences assigned to a particular category as 'consequences resulting from...' more than anything else, to allow narrative freedom while not allowing for game weaselyness.

You're right, I hadn't considered the wrinkle of specific consequences. Fate Core also provides extra consequences for having high Physique and Will but it's explicit under the description of consequences that ALL consequences are generic in Core... which means that a highly trained monk is as hard to take out in physical combat as Conan.

And that's kind of awesome.

Actually, no.  From the 3/18 draft, pg. 50:

"At Superb (+5) or higher, they also grant an additional mild consequence slot, but specifically restricted to either physical harm (Physique) or mental harm (Will)."

I'd still interpret that as allowing relative freedom with the naming and impact of the consequence, but limiting the use of the consequence to situations arising from mental/physical harm.

Ahh, that's slightly inconsistent with this on p. 162:

"Unlike stress, a consequence slot may take a long time to recover after the conflict is over. Also unlike stress, you only have oneset of consequences; there aren’t specific slots for physical versus mental consequences."

The description of Physique and Will are also ambiguous on this subject. For example Physique on p118 says: "Superb and above give you additional mild consequence slot along with the additional stress boxes".

I shall log it on the Fate Core spreadsheet as an area that could potentially use consolidating, if that's still open.

Anyway, this only becomes an issue with something like the "Confronted with Own Mortality", which is clearly a mental consequence that might have arisen from a near miss with physical stress.

I think avoiding the whole damage parallel is really important for "getting" stress and consequences in Fate. I'm going to try and write a little about this for a Fate project I'm playing with at the minute, but I think a Consequence can (and should) be a lot more than just "Injury", and you can really create some interesting stories by using consequences creatively. I like the idea of just using a single unified stress track, to give equal rating to stress and consequences in all settings, not just physical fighting. (Although I also really like the idea of hyper-specialised stress tracks too, like the "Hunger" stress for Vamps in DFRPG)

I'm not sure where "damage" is a concept from Physics comes from... That's usually not part of the curriculum. Now stress is a Physics concept; in material science it means that material is influenced in a way that may cause it to break or change its form.

It's also a term in biology. Biological stress typically describes a negative condition or a positive condition that can have an impact on an organism's mental and physical well-being.

Damage might be defined as injury or harm impairing the function or condition of a person or thing. Either way it's not terribly far off from either.

So I guess you're splitting hairs about it not necessarily being injury or harm? That's not really unique, d20 modeled Hit Points as an abstract that didn't necessarily reflect direct injury or harm themselves. In some iterations, your HP total was your capacity to evade and resist and once that was expended you began to take real harm in terms of vitality points.

An interesting note on the continuum of mental and physical stress/consequences. There is quite a bit of research to indicate that mental states can have a profound impact on a person's capacity to receive and function after a physical injury. A bodily injury may be physical, but the pain is always mental, psychological and emotional.

There is a case study of a doctor who served in WWII who noted that only 1 in 5 soldiers that came in complained of enough pain that he had to administer morphine. When he returned after the war and he treated injuries to civilians of the same trauma and they always required more morphine. He believed the meaning attached to the injury changed the perceived pain. For the soldier it meant surviving and returning home, for the civilian it meant a loss of income, lost activities and other negative consequences. So the soldier might only have taken a physical hit, but you could say the civilian got hit physically and mentally.

Make of that what you will... but there is a biological and psychological rationale for treating both physical and emotional pain as being one and the same.

It's apparently also the case that a lot of the "get shot, fall down" effect is psychological, at least with handguns. People who are worked up enough can virtually ignore a few bullet wounds in the short-term as long as they don't hit the heart, spinal cord, brain or one of the very major blood vessels.

+Richard Bellingham Totally. The force of the bullet hitting someone is basically the same force as the recoil of the gun. It's not enough to send someone flying.

"damage = physics" is a reference to the fact that the game isn't trying to simulate a physical reality, but rather narrative reality.  The game isn't concerned primarily with the modeling the physical action of swinging a sword and the effects that that sword would have if it met human flesh.

Why isn't it trying to simulate physical reality? In a particularly hard-nosed and gritty setting it may be important story-wise that the physical laws are observed.

I've played that game, it's called Phoenix Command.  The therapy has helped me forget ;)

On a more serious note, I've even said that realism may be important to a particular genre of fiction, but it's still in service to the narrative, not the other way around.

+Chase Rude In that case, Consequences are going to be visceral, but still not necessarily only reflect physical injuries. The point really isn't splitting hairs about whether Consequences are injuries, it's recognizing that Consequences don't have to be only injuries and can reflect the overall effect.

What +Wil Hutton said.  Clearly, some consequences are injuries, as that's a pretty straightforward way to have an ongoing effect on the story.

+Chase Rude You're absolutely right but it's not the 'get sent flying' effect I was talking about. I mean that usually people only slump down and stop taking action when they get shot for psychological reasons; people can keep on trucking with a few bullet wounds unless they get hit in one of the 'instant kill' zones I mentioned earlier. Fanatics and PCP users may not even notice they've been shot.

I'm only speaking of the short term here but the first few seconds after shooting an attacker are pretty vital in a combat scenario.

Sure, there's recognizing that Consequences don't have to be injuries and then there's saying no such thing as damage.
Maybe it isn't necessarily damage, but that's clearly not what +Robert Hanz was saying initially. "it's pretty clear that it's not meant to represent actual physical damage in any way." So he came out a little too strong on that before, because clearly some are injuries.

The causality of realistic consequences may lead the narrative in new and interesting ways. The reality of the situation doesn't always have to be subservient to someone's idea of the narration. Sometimes random events change the course of history just by their mere fact.

+Richard Bellingham I'm glad someone finds the fact that scientifically mental and physical trauma can be considered additive. I'm pretty amazed at this. There are studies relating how someone has an increased sensitivity to pain if they are mentally traumatized or socially isolated. Basically, your social and mental consequences add up with your physical ones.

I think there's a bit of seeing the trees instead of the forest here. Fate Core doesn't have a traditional damage mechanic. The concept doesn't exist. You can conceivably run a realistic Fate game without a single Consequence that represents only physical trauma, and instead only the results of that trauma. That's a pretty big paradigm shift from, say, a wound system.

Also I think everyone is on the same page here except agreeing whether or not Consequences are a damage mechanic. I don't think they are in the strict sense of the word.

+Wil Hutton  The results of the physical trauma, even though that physical trauma doesn't exist? They can model damage, or not, at the whim of those playing... but it's not a damage mechanic?

I guess if what you're saying is that you aren't limited to only doing damage... say like WoD's wound system. Yeah, I'd pretty much agree to that.

I don't think the system is all that different from several "damage" mechanics from other systems. Consequences are a more fluid form of wound penalties that games like WoD or Burning Wheel have used. Stress more clearly highlights its pacing mechanism vs actual harm (something that's been with HPs since their inception). The system is a little more liberating but it's not "there's no such thing as damage" it's more like "there's so much more than damage."

Except the assessment is missing an important piece - the player chooses - take stress or take a Consequence or concede. In a game with a traditional damage mechanic, you don't negotiate with the bullet. In that sense, Fate can represent physical injury but it's not a damage mechanic, it'd a narrative tool.

What do you mean it isn't a damage mechanic? Maybe not a traditional one, because giving the choice is rather unique, but it is still a way to potentially assign injury or damage.

You are betrayed by your close friend and pushed off a 50' cliff (roll attack results) that's 6 shifts... In any setting with a passing familiarity with the laws of nature you're not believably soaking that up with a Severe "fear of heights" or just "he hurt my feelings" consequence. The natural consequences that the story demands are more physical.

Maybe denying that there is any damage system helps free you up to see other possibilities, but that doesn't mean it doesn't also function as one.

What does denying that there is a damage mechanic get you? A target can't assign a consequence to an injury, like a broken arm? No, you can do that... but it's not damage... At least mechanically... Well there are mechanics that explain how to do it, but they're not "damage" mechanics.

It's a narrative tool and a damage mechanic, the two aren't mutually exclusive. Things get damaged in stories too.

+Chase Rude, do you go by Enlightened on rpg.net, by chance?

Look, man, it's pretty well documented on here that your preferred way to view Fate Core is to kinda squint and see the resemblances to traditional games.  (I believe 'squint' was your word, btw, I'm not trying to belittle your stance).

These posts are about doing the opposite, deliberately looking at the game without those preconceptions, and seeing what sense the game makes that way.

Those are pretty opposite goals and beliefs, and frankly any discussion on what's a good way to look at the game can't really happen when we have very different goals in terms of looking at the game.

I look at Fate Core, and see "consequences" and "stress" and a lot of things that don't say "damage."  I see that Consequences need to flow from the narrative, which solves your issue with the fall down the cliff.  But by doing so, I can look at what happens as a way of informing the future parts of the narrative rather than simply modeling the damage that occurs from the fall - my choice of how to do resolve it will be based on 'hey, what makes a good story based on this' - the consequences in a non-game-term meaning - rather than the likely physical results.

At the same time, you look at Fate Core and see something that looks, in a lot of ways, like a traditional damage system, and it's pretty apparent that you can do that.

My view and your view are both incompatible with each other, and with each other's goals for the system.

Frankly, I avoid responding to things you post that promote the 'hybrid' view which you prefer, because I know it will lead to a pointless circular discussion, and because you deserve your soapbox to espouse your views intelligently, just as much as everyone does.

Just to clarify, since you seem to like to interpret the things that I say in the worst way possible, this doesn't mean that I'm not open to dissenting opinions or discussion.  It means that any productive discussion between us in terms of 'how to view Fate' would have to have some agreement on what a "good" result is.  And there isn't any.  And I frankly don't see any forthcoming, because if I wanted to play a more traditional or hybrid game, I'd play Savage Worlds or GURPS and use some of their rules that emulate some of the narrative aspects of Fate.  I have games that fulfill that need for me, and I'd rather have Fate fulfill other gaming needs I have (which I think it does very well).  And you have very strongly made your case that you prefer playing Fate as a more "hybrid" game, and your preference for Strands of Fate.

You ask "why does the physics have to be subservient to the narrative?"  Well, two reasons:  

1) that's what I'm looking for the system to do, and

2) that's pretty much the stated design goal of the author.  To quote: " With Fate Core, you'll be able to drive right to the heart of your characters, using simple-yet-deep rules to make the most of those stories. Throughout, you'll use Fate Core's mechanics to model how fiction, not physics, operates, producing an experience that's better than "realistic" -- it's authentic. "

Now, of course, people don't have to play that way, but since these posts are about my trying to gain better insight into the author's goals, deliberately contradicting these goals isn't something that is particularly productive.  And that's the core disagreement, put a slightly different way.

So really, I'm proposing that we each acknowledge these differences, and deliberately avoid dragging each other's positive contributions to this community into the type of circular argument that this thread has been doing for the past ten or so responses.  I'm still happy to hear your thoughts on the game, as I find you have a lot of insight.  I'm still happy to have you contribute to discussions I start, especially when they don't revolve around the 'narrative game vs. hybrid game' core disagreement.  At the same time, I'm more than happy to contribute to your posts that don't key on the 'narrative vs. hybrid game' disagreement, simply because I find it unproductive, and frankly I think that doing so would be a little disrespectful to you.

Using the fall example - let's say your friend does that and there is 6 stress. You only have two stress boxes. So choose to take a Mild and Moderate Consequence rather than be taken out (which would be the fall). The Mild Consequence is scuffs and bruises from the struggle. The Moderate Consequence is your severe hurt and distrust of someone who you thought cared for you. Because to actually be pushed off the cliff, you'd need to concede or get taken out. You could certainly reverse them so the Moderate Consequence is broken ribs and the Mild Consequence is some hurt feelings. I think that's not nearly as interesting.

That's why I contend Consequences are not a "damage mechanic" - it's a narrative tool that can include damage. Purple contains both blue and red - yet people don't say "That means purple is red." Consequences have trauma as one of many things under their purview - that makes it a mechanic capable of simulating "damage", but not categorically a "damage mechanic". 

+Robert Hanz I'll try not to take your words the wrong way. A lot of it does strike me a little as, "you're one of them" kind of talk, but I'll assume that wasn't the intention. First some clarifications. I never said squint, I'm not "Enlightened" on http://RPG.NET and Strands isn't my preferred system... Just one I thought it worth defending their right to be able to use the word "Fate".

I guess I'm in the minority that doesn't try to limit myself to one mode of play. When people categorically make statements about what Fate IS I chime in. I see things differently. To use Wil's colors, this post said that red didn't exist, not that we're using purple.

I guess if the designer said that Core is only for narrative play, then it probably isn't for me. I like to include other modes of play and I don't feel obliged to restrain myself to just the authorial intent. I have games that use narrative rules. I could play Primetime Adventures, Dogs in the Vineyard or Lady Blackbird for those.

I'll refrain from sullying the narrative threads. I have no intention of being disrespectful.

That's a pretty good point, +Wil Hutton.  There's no "throw someone over the cliff" action in Fate.  There's Attack, which will do an appropriate amount of stress, but since "over the cliff" would require being Taken Out of the conflict, doing six stress doesn't really narratively flow that someone went over the cliff.

And you're correct, +Chase Rude, you did not say squint.  The actual quote was "To me, Fate is a hybrid game that can support this kind of play as well if you look at it with the right eyes. "  For some reason I had mis-remembered this as being something more like 'if you squint at it enough'.  I truly apologize if you took my use of the word squint as a pejorative or any other form of attack, I can assure you that none was meant by it.

I'll just quote an entire sidebar from the draft:

"*DRAMA IS BETTER THAN REALISM*
In Fate, don’t get too bogged down trying to maintain absolute consistency in the world or adhere to a draconian sense of realism. The game operates by the rules of drama and fiction; use that to your advantage. There should be very few moments in the game where the PCs are free of conflicts or problems to deal with, even if it’d be more “realistic” for them to get a long breather.

When you’re trying to decide what happens, and the answer that makes the most sense is also kind of boring, go with something that’s more exciting than sensible! You can always find a way later on to justify something that doesn’t make immediate sense."

So, yes, Core is intended for narrative play. That doesn't mean you can't play it another way - but there are plenty of other Fate implementations, like Strands, that already do this. It's great to have a multitude of opinions - because that's really what all of this is - and it definitely helps to have dissent. But like +Robert Hanz said, much better than I ever could, trying to argue the point that there exists a damage system just like any other game is counter productive to the conversation because of the sidebar above. Especially in a conversation that came out of a discussion about the narrative nature of Consequences (my earlier post about delaying Consequences) as an exploration of how to make Consequences work to their fullest. Robert made that intent of expanding the conversation crystal clear, regardless if he said there was "no red in the purple". 

"There's no 'throw someone over the cliff action' in Fate." Who's being pedantic about the mechanics regarding a narrative description? A character can't ever successfully push someone off a cliff in Fate? Nevermind, I'm withdrawing from this.

I end up playing devil's advocate for other interpretations since Fate didn't seem as narrative as, say, Amber or as Gamist as d20 but, as the canonical text attests, I'm wrong and Fate Core is just narrative. There are other implementations, but they don't have a place here. I'll leave you alone.

+Chase Rude Fate spreads across a very broad spectrum, and I'm certainly not anyone with any kind of ability to say "No, this implementation does not belong here." But this is a community for Fate Core and not Fate in general.

But to answer your question about pedantry, +Robert Hanz is correct. There is the intent to throw someone off of a cliff. The dice will help set the likelihood of that happening. But until all of the invokes and stunts and Fate Points are all on the table, the push doesn't happen.

And it's not entirely pedantry.  The point is that if you could "push someone off a cliff," then it'd be entirely reasonable to determine how much stress that would do, enforce the appropriate mechanics, and whatnot.  But you can't.  What you can do is Attack, narrate it as an intent to throw someone off of the cliff, and then narrate a result that is consistent with the die rolls.

And since someone that has been thrown over the cliff is effectively out of the combat, it seems that that would only be an appropriate narration of the result if the opponent was Taken Out.

I think that's a pretty significant difference, actually.

+Jan Stals the context was a PC being thrown off a 50' cliff. That is being Taken Out - the PC is no longer able to participate in the conflict in any meaningful way and from a realistic perspective (if that's a concern) is going to be severely injured. But the point was that the PC won't go off the cliff just because the other character succeeds at an Attack action - all that does is set the stakes the PC needs to overcome (through invokes, stunts or Fate Points) to prevent it from happening. As you pointed out, even then that doesn't mean that the PC has actually tumbled off the cliff all the way to the bottom - if they have stress boxes and consequences left, they could very well be hanging from a ledge because that's interesting. The only way I can see the final result being the PC 50' down at the bottom of the cliff is by conceding or being Taken Out.

This idea about applying consequences seems completely obvious and it never really struck me before this. Which means it was a great writeup on how to think about them. So please tell me this is posted somewhere outside the searchless G+?

+David Hoberman, not at the moment.  However +Fred Hicks has suggested he may gift me with a blog account at faterpg.com, and I can assure you the first thing I'd do with that is transfer these posts to a more permanent home :)

Sweet!

+Jan Stals "do I want the NPC to die?  No.  Then GM Fiat the survival"

I've not really taken the time to read FATE Core thoroughly yet. Does it state a position on this? I think that it's against the rules for the GM to do this - doesn't attacker dictate terms on a Taken Out?

Yeah, the attacker gets to dictate terms on Taken Out.  If you don't want that, Concede.

I could certainly see a Compel being in order, though.

Thought so. Beyond this narrow point... what's the FATE Core philosophy on arbitrary GM fiat and fudging? I presume it's "not the done thing", if not explicitly against the rules?

Personally, I never fudge in Fate.  The rules are such that the usual culprits for fudging are unnecessary, especially when combined with Fate Points.

What do you specifically mean by "GM Fiat"?  It's a loose system, so a lot of things do come down to GM judgement calls (usually informed by the table, of course), as opposed to a system where everything is laid out in the rules and charts.

GM fiat? To be honest, I'm not sure. I'm very hostile these days, in theory, to anything that gives the GM the chance or temptation to railroad. The main reason I play is for collaborative storytelling and creation; the trad GM role gives me more responsibility than I want, the trad player role not enough power to do anything interesting.

But that is for another thread I think!

I know I'm a little late to the party (many months), but I thought I'd throw my hat in the ring and hope someone sees it.

Being shoved off a cliff wouldn't be an attack in my book. The shove itself (which is the action taken by the npc) isn't going to physically harm the PC. The implication is that the fall will. I'd probably use a create advantage (though the case for overcome is there). I would model this as a Physique check vs active (or passive if the PC is unaware he is being shoved) Physique on the PC's part.

So, let's just say our NPC succeeded and placed an aspect like "Shoved off a Cliff" on our PC. Just like being grappled , this places some narrative restrictions on our PC. He can't just move back onto the cliff or walk off.

So what is our resolution? The PC has his chance to respond (before anything else new is introduced as a result of the fall, since I'm a nice GM).  So he can make an overcome action at this point to try and end his "Shoved off a Cliff". Perhaps Athletics to grab onto the cliff face and thus end his fall. This is of course opposed by the aspect with say average or fair opposition, plus any free invocations or fate points spent to up the opposition.

Now, even if our PC fails to overcome, he has the option to succeed at a cost, which he's smartly taken having seen me grinning like a stupid idiot at the thought of using the fate fractal to have the ground/gravity attack him. He takes a consequence for his success. Perhaps he has "Pulled his Arm" or has "Salt in the Wound" as his friend on the cliff overhead taunts him for being so foolish as to ever think they were friends. How fiendish.

The encounter then continues with our PC in the zone "Cliff" and the NPC in the next zone "Cliff Top" or something similar. The PC would likely have to make an overcome to climb up or down the cliff face, potentially complicated by new injuries.

Had the PC decided to not succeed at a cost... well he'd have a good story about how he survived that legendary fall (probably via concession).

Anyway, that is how I would handle it. My method doesn't require a taken out result (which is a lot to ask for a simple shove), doesn't automatically inflict any kind of damage, etc. Further, having the PC trapped on a cliff face is a great time for our NPC to use provoke to really scar the PC after the betrayal.

And that's how I turned an example into a wall of text. Hope you enjoyed if you made it all the way through :)

Thanks +steven swezey The clearer and the most elegant way to handle that I read so far. :)

Thanks for this.

In 4th edition D&D, hit points become something anyone could regain on their own, and which could be replaced quickly without magic. When I play it, think of them primarily as "stress," thanks to Spirit of the Century and Fate. I encourage my fellow players to do the same. The way I see it, a character can be at less than full HP and not have a scratch, and be at full HP and look like hell.

I haven't played much Fate, but I did feel like I understood consequences as not having to be about damage. Yes, wonkiness is possible, though if the table collaborates on what a given consequence is, that should be a fairly minor issue at one's own table.

Consequences are the lasting, well, consequences of a Conflict outside of the story stakes. They can be 'damage' or injuries, but aren't necessarily.

📌