Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
Tags

CBR+PNK Core

Tabletop RPG for cinematic cyberpunk one-shots. · By Emanoel Melo

Expertise clarification.

A topic by Mosska created Jul 25, 2023 Views: 206 Replies: 4
Viewing posts 1 to 2

Hey Emanoel and CBR+PNK peeps!

In the Runner File....under the Skills section...the line about Expertises states: 

EXPERTISES don’t add + to a roll, but allow you to trade+ for an EDGEand vice-versa—when they are applicable.

So I have two questions.

1) EXPERTISES don’t add + to a roll, but allow you to trade+ for an EDGE. 

I take this as if you have +2 in Coding and an Expertise in that for Hacking....then when it comes to an Action Roll using the Coding skill to hack....the player can choose to have the +2 from the Coding skill....or take +1 for Coding and get an EDGE on the roll (then the Edge would be translated to either Decreased Threat or Increased Effect based on what fit the narrative) . Is that correct? 

2)"and vice-versa-when they are applicable." 

Does this mean a player could trade their EDGE in a narrative moment to add+ to the roll?  So lower/remove an Edge and have one extra die added to the roll?

Ex. In a scene where the PCs have established superior position and created an strategic advantage for an ambush of a target....they would have an EDGE which mechanically could translate to having +Effect for a Action Roll due to it being an increase to their effectiveness in that moment.....but if a player wanted to increase the likelihood of a success...they could forgo the EDGE (+Effect from the tactical position) granted by the fiction and instead have an extra die for the Action Roll?  Which leads them to having a higher chance of success. Is this correct and or an reading into "vice-versa" incorrectly? 

Thanks in advance for your help! 

Developer

Hey Mosska!

An Expertise is an additional thing to the parent Skill, like a special ability that makes the Skill more versatile in narrower circumstances.

1) So, your example is correct, if you are using Coding to hack, you can trade one of the dice for an EDGE. This is specially useful if the Runner is rolling 4 dice against a high level Threat, so that they can still get a good chance of success with 3 dice while being more effective or risking lesser consequences!

2) Correct, if the Expertise is applicable in the given situation they can trade their EDGE for a die to their roll.

Perfect! Thanks so much for the clear and speedy reply on this clarification Emanoel. 

One other spot where "vice-versa" shows up is on the Runner file.

"You can then raise both T and E together to improve their Effect at the cost of a worse Consequence or vice-versa."

Can you please clarify what this use of vice-versa is lean to?

I remember in Blades in the Dark there is an option players can take to trade their position for a lower one to get an increased effect for the Action Roll (ex: a player choosing to go from Risky position with Standard effect to choosing Desperate position for Great/Increased effect). I can understand the vice-versa in Blades by trading less effect for a better position.

In CRB+PNK, does the "vice-versa" in this line mean that player can then instead choose to lower the T and E for the roll if they want? Meaning the Step 3 for the Action Roll could be explained to a new player as "You can then choose to raise or lower both T and E together." or does this wording loss a design goal with your original wording?

Thanks again for the continued help as I learn the tweaks/streamlining of CBR+PNK from BitD/FitD.

Developer

Your interpretation of Blades in the Dark's "vice-versa" is correct: the Player can choose to raise both T and E to improve the potential effect with the trade-off of facing a worse consequence if they fail. Conversely, they can choose to lower both T and E, which would reduce the consequence severity on a failure, but with the cost of a reduced effect even if they succeed.

Perfect! Another clear, quick and helpful response. Thanks so much for confirming I’m reading that correctly. Much appreciated!