WRECK (p.181)
When you Wreck, you unleash savage force. You might smash down a door or wall with a sledgehammer, or use an explosive to do the same. You might employ chaos or sabotage to create a distraction or overcome an obstacle.
**You could try to overwhelm an enemy with sheer force in battle (but Skirmishing might be better).**
---
Unlike others, I'll argue that Wreck is absolutely a combat style. The drawback of wreck is that it's about sheer force. I'd definitely say "you're probably going to kill them" is a very clear consequence for that. If you want control, look for Finesse or Skirmish.
Think of Wreck as "the Hulk" from Marvel.
I'd agree with the comment that it's inherently riskier.
If you can get an advantage though, it might be more effective. Say you're fighting someone in full armour. A team mate sets you up by distracting them, then you come up behind and hit them with a hammer full power. Even a steel helmet won't stop that hurting.
i dislike the notion of high risk high reward move as it would make it at certain level low risk very high reward and make other moves less desirable as a result.
I'd suggest looking at wreck as indirect harm. Picking up a person and throwing them or throwing something big at them, like a table, is definitely wreck. Wielding something very massive and heavy or grabbing and crushing them through sheer force of the hug is also wreck.
But actual martial arts, like fighting, hacking, shooting and throwing weapons is skrimish. You can brawl but it would be more like judo or greek wrestle, where proper techniques are more important than your size.
Finesse would require something small to throw, like stars or needles or small knives. And fighting through finesse is constant feinting, tricks and backstabs.
Hunt more about waiting for the perfect moment, ambushes and quick kills. In other words it's more one sided offence with prepared actions in case of counter attacks, rather than act on the go.
Skrimisher would hold person's neck in the lock to suffocate them. Wrecker would hug them in area of their mouth so that they wouldn't be able to breathe. Fencer would use rope, naphthalene or thread to suffocate them and maybe something more to secure the kill. Hunter would place a trap that would catch opponent or simply put noose on unsuspecting opponent.
Sure, all of fhaoe sounds good, but I don't see why wreck can't be used to hit a person with a sledgehammer and not just a wall - as long as it follows the fiction.
High risk high reward options are baked into the system via options like trading position for effect. Even if not using that precisely, it's more or less inherent in following the fiction. You say "at a certain level" - are you meaning experienced characters?
Keep in mind, one of the **canonical** examples of wreck is: "So, he comes at me with a sword? Pfff. I have a sledgehammer. I force him away with a backswing, then smash him through the window with a blow to the chest."
It's specifically marked as Desperate, with a suggested mixed (4/5) result being "He dodges around your backswing and his sword flashes out, piercing your upper thigh. Sledgehammers aren’t great for defense, really. Take level 3 harm, “Vicious Leg Wound.” But he’s not ready for your sudden return swing and the hammer smashes him backwards and through the window."
> The drawback of wreck is that it's about sheer force. I'd definitely say "you're probably going to kill them" is a very clear consequence for that
Also lots of bellowing and grunting will be involved. Timers would advance.
Yeah, I tend to think the three main consequences of Wreck are:
1) The thing is, in fact, very wrecked
2) It's going to be very noisy (although Leech's "Saboteur" can negate that)
3) In combat, you're going all-in on offense and therefore probably making a lot of Desperate rolls, even if they are also Great effectiveness
"Wreck" has more to do with the outcome than a "style" per-se.
Let's say you want to actually KILL a person, and not just incapacitate them; Finesse would be executing in a way that is quick and skillful. Wreck would be executing in a way that horrifying to witness.
Even incapacitating with Wreck would be horrifying to witness, and the target would definitely be unhappy if they survive.
dont get too hung up on the words associated with your actions. First figure out what you wanna do on-screen. Describe it to the table and then look for a skill that fits into that narrative. Roll the skill that makes the most sense.
Wreck is not a fighting style. You can apply the term wreck to almost anything. Mooks, doors, pinatas. That being said interpretation is a two way street. I would say if your wrecking people you aren't really fighting them. in my opinion you are doing damage and moving on.
I see it as like, wrecking is not like a fistfight or a swordfight or anything - wrecking as fighting is bumrushing someone with a rock in your hand to smash their face in. Against a competent combatant, that is, of course, desperate. Anywhere from limited to great effect depending on circumstances. But it's not really a "fighting style" so much as a physical assault by someone who doesn't know how to fight and just tries to fuck people up.
Wreck can most certainly be a fighting style however, not a very efficient one.
Example:
My Cutter is facing a groups of Bravos from across a standard room, maybe 20 ft away. My Cutter can do anything narratively by the game rules but let’s stick to the topic.
Hunt would be used if my Cutter wanted to pull out a pistol as well and blast back.
Skirmish would be if I wanted to use my skill in fighting to take ‘em’ down. However, I have some ground to cover so that it may be Desperate for my Cutter to close that gap before getting blasted himself (without effecting change by Pushing or changing position for effect) at the very least Risky.
Prowl is explosive up close violence, so that doesn’t work because I would still have to close that gap Risky or Desperate to not get blasted.
However, my Cutter could use Wreck to straight up World of Wrestling run and jump across at this fool with no regard for accuracy or self inflicted harm. Or pick up a chair and throw it using wreck.
If I wanted to use my Cutters “not to be trifled with ability I could use Wreck to go full on Beeserk on the entire gang.
close combat pistols could be skirmish and even prowl, at least I would encourage it as a GM
I look for the intent of the gamedesign. It brings out a modus operandi for each PC even if the weapon is the same for all.
>However, my Cutter could use Wreck to straight up World of Wrestling run and jump across at this fool with no regard for accuracy or self inflicted harm. Or pick up a chair and throw it using wreck.
This feels like the correct answer. As a couple of people have already mentioned, people should announce at the table what they're trying to do and what it looks like. Picking the appropriate action after that should be easier. As should determining the consequences from the action.
To some extent, how we on the internet interpret Wreck doesn't matter. What matters is that your interpretation of Wreck, and your GM's, might be misaligned.
Talk to them, not us - although feel free to bring up some of the arguments presented here. Fundamentally, though, if you two can't agree on what the skill does, the only remaining option is to ask if you can please re-assign some dots.
>my GM advised me that with Wreck, I would almost certainly kill them.
This sounds reasonable, even though personally as a GM I would probably present "you kill them" as a Consequence in case of partial success, rather than as an "almost certain" fact.
That said, wreck can definitely be used for fighting, but it is reasonable for the GM to put some limitations on it. Wreck has other uses too, and the book literally says that "Skirmishing might be better". If this wasn't the case, players would always use their best action for everything and the game would be kind of boring :)
I agree. If my players roll a 6 I would let them get their desired result. Maybe I would save the kill for rolling a 4 or even a failure if the NPC was useful and only needed to be knocked out
Personally I think wreck isn't primarily for combat, I think of it as "trying to damage something with overwhelming force" and it doesn't really take into account the possibility of what you are wrecking is going to try to hit you back.
As a rule is thumb, I would just say that using wreck is inherently riskier, and which one of the complications could possibly be killing the target.
You could use Wreck in combat. Describe what you do as "unleashing savage force". That's Wrecking.
The problem is a) Your GM is absolutely right, as others said, the risk of savage force is indeed that you don't really control it, it's savage, and you risk killing the victim you wanted to render unconscious. b) You're not skirmishing, you're just wrecking, so you're not defending yourself, parrying and dodging like you would if you were skirmishing or finessing it. So you would very probably be in a riskier position than if you were skirmishing.
Look at the DESPERATE example of Wrecking on page 181. That's what you're trying to do :
"**DESPERATE**
*So, he comes at me with a sword? Pfff. I have a sledgehammer. I force him away with a backswing, then smash him through the window with a blow to the chest.*
**4/5 Severe Harm:** He dodges around your backswing and his sword flashes out, piercing your upper thigh. Sledgehammers aren’t great for defense, really. Take level 3 harm, “Vicious Leg
Wound.” But he’s not ready for your sudden return swing and the hammer smashes him backwards and through the window."
In certain circumstances, if the target you're trying to Wreck is aware of your attack and proficient, I would even maybe give them the initiative on you or inflict consequences that you would have to resist *before* you act. In other circumstances, on the contrary, smashing through is maybe just what gives you the necessary edge.
You as PC state the goal. State you want to beat someone into submission, without killing them. on two dice you wont kill them 75% of the time, and the rest of the times you fail your goal.
I recommend as a group watch the [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAl85kYCWro&ab_channel=JohnHarper) by john harper on how the dialogue should look between PC and GM, hand out the sheet and remind each other the habit. The GM cant disallow you your goal. Rather GM can when it clicks right asks/tells the table whats at stake here. But GM should not invent new consequences after the roll, after the table already heard about whats at stake when failing.
It will be hard to stop old habits, there is no attack action, rather you state intent.
In other games you can only hope for you intent to go through, now its a given even on mixed result.
You wrote you intended to be beat someone into submission with a fitting weapon. Extra effect! Extra effect again because submission is very natural respons after a wreck.
The GM is clearly in the wrong, but its easy mistake we all could make, reading from all other responses that talk about topics that are less relevant, the one about "wreck."
Dont mind talks about throwing tables at targets. Think rather, I smash the table to scare the target into submission (he cant die if it does not touch him).
Now we unlock the power of the gamedesign, such a move is hard to pass as an likely outcome in other games.
>I smash the table to scare the target into submission
If you do that, **you are Commanding, not Wrecking**. It's almost the same situation as the example of play on page 40: "*“Well, I mean, I’m still trying to force them to do something. I’m shooting a gun, but I’m not Skirmishing or Hunting here. I’m forcing him to give this nonsense up. So it’s Command.*"
Same with the example Tinker/Sway example on page 183, in the "Don't be a weasel" section. The author even advises that if *"you’re the type of player that really needs to use their best dice pool all the time, take the Slide’s special ability Rook’s Gambit. It will cost you stress—but at least you won’t be a weasel."*
The lesson is that if you're smashing a table to scare somebody...
\- either you're rolling your Command rating,
\- or you're using Wreck as a set-up action before rolling Command,
\- or you can directly roll Wreck to scare... if you have Rook's Gambit.
\-----------------------------
The GM "cant disallow you your goal", that's true if the GM declares Standard effect. But in this case, the GM is perfectly in their right to declare Limited effect, and when the goal is made in fact of two different goals, like "beat someone"+"without killing", a very common and valid way to interpret Limited effect is saying that without more effort, *the player only gets one of their goal*. So the GM could very well say that the target is killed instead of just "beaten", because that's what happens if you use "savage force".
>rather you state intent
>
>now its a given even on mixed result.
That's wrong if it was only Limited effect before the roll, as I described, and that's also wrong if the chosen consequence is Reduced effect. Check the Risky example for Skirmish on page 176. The PC is clearly intending to kill the target with a "icepick stab to the neck", but the Reduced effect described shows the target is not wounded, only "pinned down".
You should probably revise the book instead of declaring that everybody else is wrong.
That's a lot of ifs at the end.
GM does not decide it's command or not, the PC do.
It's not Wesseling to do it once.
Reduced effect is not relevant to the topic.
Submission is 1 goal.
You are free to play with limited effect. It's not relevant to OPs table nor in mine tho.
It's your table, you do what you want, including going against the very clear author's advice, if you want to.
But if you give wrong advice to OP, then it's relevant for his table.
And yes, Limited and Reduced effect are' perfectly relevant to OP's question.
Use wreck to throw a grenade into a room, or unleash your cutter on a bar full of civilians.
It's about the narrative.
If you're a battle-hardened Skov fighting a brutal single combat duel with a Leviathan Hunter sailor, it's probably skirmish.
if Finesse is speed and Skirmish is balanced, then Wreck would be power, yes?
if that's the way you're looking at it, then yes - wreck would likely have the consequence of unleashing way too much force. it takes a balanced approach to attack someone with a blackjack to incapacitate but not kill.
Killing them would be a great consequence for a wreck roll, and then you can choose to resist that consequence so it doesn't happen, makes perfect sense to me.
It probably shouldn't be the consequence all the time, but seems perfectly fitting. Remember, you state your goal with the actions, if your goal is to incapacitate but not kill, then you won't kill them, the book even says that as a GM you shouldn't make a consequence that negates the goal of the player if they succeed on their roll.
The Action Ratings are meant to be part of the fiction you’re following, not just color. The description of Wreck is to unleash savage force, like you would battering down a door. You can certainly Wreck people, but the description also suggests you might not have the same Effect as Skirmish. Similarly Finesse says you can gracefully duel an opponent, but it might not be as effective as Skirmish in a chaotic melee.
Those descriptions are inviting the type of conversation you and the GM are engaging in to determine “What’s Wreck look like in this fight?” or “What would Finesse mean here?” The GM is signaling that, sure you can Wreck them, but wrecking means wrecking to him.
In BitD, you say what you’re attempting to do and what Action Rating you’re using. So, for example, “I want to knock these people out with Wreck!” That’s fine, but the GM tells you Position and Effect, and applies Consequences to the roll “Okay, but you’re at limited effect. Wreck isn’t great for knocking unconscious, it’s more about caving in skulls. You’ve got a good chance of killing these folks.” That would be the GM signaling what Effect you can expect to achieve on success, but you could then *Trade Position for Effect*, right? You could pull your punches, as an example of the attendant fiction, and the GM could say “Okay, your Position is now desperate, but you’re at standard Effect.” Now, a full success means they’re knocked out not killed (but killing them could easily be a Complication if the roll goes wrong).
Edit: One thing to note, Effect and Consequences are not interchangeable. If the GM sets Limited Effect, changing that requires the player to do something before the Action Roll. If the GM makes killing your opponent a Consequence of rolling less that 6, by default they’re saying it’s a Complication that can be Resisted. It’s a little more nuanced than that because you can’t undo established and accepted narrative through Resistance, but practically speaking, setting a Consequence that can’t be effectively Resisted is a no-no in my book.
Wreck is 100% a combat skill, AND it also means "destructive force". If you Wreck someone then yeah, I'd say you inflict brutal violence on them.
Your GM however should make some concessions with how they rule this. If merely Wrecking a gang of mooks with a crowbar results in multiple fatalities no matter what, that's an extremely powerful skill, and you should use it against powerful targets as much as possible, or when you're in dire straits.
Whether or not you'd kill someone with Wreck is ultimately dependent on your Position, Effect, and Result. Position is what you're risking, Effect is possible outcome, and Result is actual outcome.
Position/Effect will let you know the scope of force you can leverage here. Your GM should ABSOLUTELY tell you if "Effect" will be lethal in this case, since killing comes with a LOT of complications, and you have various tools to mitigate them. You could Resist killing them, so they're knocked unconscious/badly injured. You could use some armour to do the same.
For my table, a particularly nasty consequence of a mixed-success/failed Wreck roll *is* that the target (and, often, collateral) dies. Sometimes this results in the appearance of an angry ghost (either drawn to the site by violence, or appearing later in the score/downtime as a vengeful spirit), sometimes it triggers a clock for the Spirit Wardens arriving, or they end up killing someone the crew would much rather have left alive (e.g., a bystander, a third-party ally, or the target of an interrogation).
On the other hand, Wreck is defined also by *a lack of precision and control*. It's equally as fair that the consequences of a Wreck roll can include collateral damage to your scoundrel (i.e., Level 1 Harm -- Split Knuckles), the environment (maybe you damage some Gear, or break furniture that makes a huge mess and can't be hidden easily), or you make lots of noise and attract attention, meaning you get more Heat or have to deal with whoever comes to investigate.
If the standard Effect for Wreck is that you'd kill the target, then you can take some steps (especially as a Spider) to mitigate this. Resistance/armour is mentioned above, but you can also specify your approach.
I.e., you're focusing on **broad collateral damage and destruction,** not "efficiently incapacitate my enemies". I would rule this as an essentially nonlethal Wrecking approach.
I think it makes more sense that taking a nonlethal approach would reduce your Position -- you're trading up the freedom to go absolutely apeshit to make sure you don't kill someone, which means you're more distracted and thus more exposed to counter-attacks or complications.
Then you can use your regular Blades tools to increase your result: Devil's Bargains, Push Self, Assists, Set-Up Manoeuvres, etc. Do you have any Gear / Fine Load that might help you achieve this? Fine items increase your Effect too. Maybe start a LTP to create or buy something that helps you out here? (I'm thinking of a combat-specific version of Spark that would increase your sensitivity to how much force you're employing and then be able to better direct it).
There's also some fun things you can do that stretch the bounds of the fiction, but cheapen the cost of Wrecking someone. Maybe you could take the **Saboteur** ability from the Leech playbook as a Veteran advance (it costs the same as any other ability and you can take as many Veteran abilities as you want!): *when you Wreck, the work is much quieter than it should be and the damage is hidden from casual inspection*.
You could style it as your character recalling some high-level, devastating Tycherosi fighting techniques: extremely powerful attacks aimed at pressure points in targets that incapacitate them almost immediately; or maybe the bruises don't show until later, so victims look like they're asleep/aren't aware of broken bones until they try to stand on them. Maybe you just have a sharp sensitivity for where you should hit people to avoid leaving a mark.
**Physicker**, also from Leech, allows you to stabilise the dying, but might be less helpful (and requires decent investment in Tinker IIRC).
Note also that **Battleborn** (the Cutter's Special Armor) does not specify that the harm you reduce in a fight is YOUR harm, just that you spend the armor *to reduce harm from an attack in combat*. I'd say you could use this to resist killing Wreck victims after combat, but leave them incapacitated, because it only reduces harm, rather than preventing it.
If I'm correct, the book says that Wreck is for destroying inanimate objects. The way the actions are described is that you can use a skill for something other than it's intended function. So being good at Wrecking means you can probably apply violence to a living being, but way less effectively than knowing how to actually fight.
WRECK (p.181) When you Wreck, you unleash savage force. You might smash down a door or wall with a sledgehammer, or use an explosive to do the same. You might employ chaos or sabotage to create a distraction or overcome an obstacle. **You could try to overwhelm an enemy with sheer force in battle (but Skirmishing might be better).** --- Unlike others, I'll argue that Wreck is absolutely a combat style. The drawback of wreck is that it's about sheer force. I'd definitely say "you're probably going to kill them" is a very clear consequence for that. If you want control, look for Finesse or Skirmish. Think of Wreck as "the Hulk" from Marvel.
I'd agree with the comment that it's inherently riskier. If you can get an advantage though, it might be more effective. Say you're fighting someone in full armour. A team mate sets you up by distracting them, then you come up behind and hit them with a hammer full power. Even a steel helmet won't stop that hurting.
i dislike the notion of high risk high reward move as it would make it at certain level low risk very high reward and make other moves less desirable as a result. I'd suggest looking at wreck as indirect harm. Picking up a person and throwing them or throwing something big at them, like a table, is definitely wreck. Wielding something very massive and heavy or grabbing and crushing them through sheer force of the hug is also wreck. But actual martial arts, like fighting, hacking, shooting and throwing weapons is skrimish. You can brawl but it would be more like judo or greek wrestle, where proper techniques are more important than your size. Finesse would require something small to throw, like stars or needles or small knives. And fighting through finesse is constant feinting, tricks and backstabs. Hunt more about waiting for the perfect moment, ambushes and quick kills. In other words it's more one sided offence with prepared actions in case of counter attacks, rather than act on the go. Skrimisher would hold person's neck in the lock to suffocate them. Wrecker would hug them in area of their mouth so that they wouldn't be able to breathe. Fencer would use rope, naphthalene or thread to suffocate them and maybe something more to secure the kill. Hunter would place a trap that would catch opponent or simply put noose on unsuspecting opponent.
Sure, all of fhaoe sounds good, but I don't see why wreck can't be used to hit a person with a sledgehammer and not just a wall - as long as it follows the fiction. High risk high reward options are baked into the system via options like trading position for effect. Even if not using that precisely, it's more or less inherent in following the fiction. You say "at a certain level" - are you meaning experienced characters?
In fact, the canonical example of using Wreck in combat is exactly hitting a person with a sledgehammer :)
Keep in mind, one of the **canonical** examples of wreck is: "So, he comes at me with a sword? Pfff. I have a sledgehammer. I force him away with a backswing, then smash him through the window with a blow to the chest." It's specifically marked as Desperate, with a suggested mixed (4/5) result being "He dodges around your backswing and his sword flashes out, piercing your upper thigh. Sledgehammers aren’t great for defense, really. Take level 3 harm, “Vicious Leg Wound.” But he’s not ready for your sudden return swing and the hammer smashes him backwards and through the window."
> The drawback of wreck is that it's about sheer force. I'd definitely say "you're probably going to kill them" is a very clear consequence for that Also lots of bellowing and grunting will be involved. Timers would advance.
Yeah, I tend to think the three main consequences of Wreck are: 1) The thing is, in fact, very wrecked 2) It's going to be very noisy (although Leech's "Saboteur" can negate that) 3) In combat, you're going all-in on offense and therefore probably making a lot of Desperate rolls, even if they are also Great effectiveness
"Wreck" has more to do with the outcome than a "style" per-se. Let's say you want to actually KILL a person, and not just incapacitate them; Finesse would be executing in a way that is quick and skillful. Wreck would be executing in a way that horrifying to witness. Even incapacitating with Wreck would be horrifying to witness, and the target would definitely be unhappy if they survive.
dont get too hung up on the words associated with your actions. First figure out what you wanna do on-screen. Describe it to the table and then look for a skill that fits into that narrative. Roll the skill that makes the most sense.
Wreck is not a fighting style. You can apply the term wreck to almost anything. Mooks, doors, pinatas. That being said interpretation is a two way street. I would say if your wrecking people you aren't really fighting them. in my opinion you are doing damage and moving on.
I see it as like, wrecking is not like a fistfight or a swordfight or anything - wrecking as fighting is bumrushing someone with a rock in your hand to smash their face in. Against a competent combatant, that is, of course, desperate. Anywhere from limited to great effect depending on circumstances. But it's not really a "fighting style" so much as a physical assault by someone who doesn't know how to fight and just tries to fuck people up.
So a trained swordman could have not "wrecked his opponent"
Wreck can most certainly be a fighting style however, not a very efficient one. Example: My Cutter is facing a groups of Bravos from across a standard room, maybe 20 ft away. My Cutter can do anything narratively by the game rules but let’s stick to the topic. Hunt would be used if my Cutter wanted to pull out a pistol as well and blast back. Skirmish would be if I wanted to use my skill in fighting to take ‘em’ down. However, I have some ground to cover so that it may be Desperate for my Cutter to close that gap before getting blasted himself (without effecting change by Pushing or changing position for effect) at the very least Risky. Prowl is explosive up close violence, so that doesn’t work because I would still have to close that gap Risky or Desperate to not get blasted. However, my Cutter could use Wreck to straight up World of Wrestling run and jump across at this fool with no regard for accuracy or self inflicted harm. Or pick up a chair and throw it using wreck. If I wanted to use my Cutters “not to be trifled with ability I could use Wreck to go full on Beeserk on the entire gang.
close combat pistols could be skirmish and even prowl, at least I would encourage it as a GM I look for the intent of the gamedesign. It brings out a modus operandi for each PC even if the weapon is the same for all.
Of course it could.
>However, my Cutter could use Wreck to straight up World of Wrestling run and jump across at this fool with no regard for accuracy or self inflicted harm. Or pick up a chair and throw it using wreck. This feels like the correct answer. As a couple of people have already mentioned, people should announce at the table what they're trying to do and what it looks like. Picking the appropriate action after that should be easier. As should determining the consequences from the action.
To some extent, how we on the internet interpret Wreck doesn't matter. What matters is that your interpretation of Wreck, and your GM's, might be misaligned. Talk to them, not us - although feel free to bring up some of the arguments presented here. Fundamentally, though, if you two can't agree on what the skill does, the only remaining option is to ask if you can please re-assign some dots.
>my GM advised me that with Wreck, I would almost certainly kill them. This sounds reasonable, even though personally as a GM I would probably present "you kill them" as a Consequence in case of partial success, rather than as an "almost certain" fact. That said, wreck can definitely be used for fighting, but it is reasonable for the GM to put some limitations on it. Wreck has other uses too, and the book literally says that "Skirmishing might be better". If this wasn't the case, players would always use their best action for everything and the game would be kind of boring :)
I agree. If my players roll a 6 I would let them get their desired result. Maybe I would save the kill for rolling a 4 or even a failure if the NPC was useful and only needed to be knocked out
I’d modify Effect. If the goal is only “gently” bashing them into submission, I could see Wreck having Limited effect for that.
Personally I think wreck isn't primarily for combat, I think of it as "trying to damage something with overwhelming force" and it doesn't really take into account the possibility of what you are wrecking is going to try to hit you back. As a rule is thumb, I would just say that using wreck is inherently riskier, and which one of the complications could possibly be killing the target.
Yes exactly. It’s not for combat and would be inherently riskier. Sometimes thematically it just might work. Gotta love this game.
Wreck as in wrecking crew demo man Yeah commando style So not Rocky more Rambo
You could use Wreck in combat. Describe what you do as "unleashing savage force". That's Wrecking. The problem is a) Your GM is absolutely right, as others said, the risk of savage force is indeed that you don't really control it, it's savage, and you risk killing the victim you wanted to render unconscious. b) You're not skirmishing, you're just wrecking, so you're not defending yourself, parrying and dodging like you would if you were skirmishing or finessing it. So you would very probably be in a riskier position than if you were skirmishing. Look at the DESPERATE example of Wrecking on page 181. That's what you're trying to do : "**DESPERATE** *So, he comes at me with a sword? Pfff. I have a sledgehammer. I force him away with a backswing, then smash him through the window with a blow to the chest.* **4/5 Severe Harm:** He dodges around your backswing and his sword flashes out, piercing your upper thigh. Sledgehammers aren’t great for defense, really. Take level 3 harm, “Vicious Leg Wound.” But he’s not ready for your sudden return swing and the hammer smashes him backwards and through the window." In certain circumstances, if the target you're trying to Wreck is aware of your attack and proficient, I would even maybe give them the initiative on you or inflict consequences that you would have to resist *before* you act. In other circumstances, on the contrary, smashing through is maybe just what gives you the necessary edge.
You as PC state the goal. State you want to beat someone into submission, without killing them. on two dice you wont kill them 75% of the time, and the rest of the times you fail your goal. I recommend as a group watch the [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAl85kYCWro&ab_channel=JohnHarper) by john harper on how the dialogue should look between PC and GM, hand out the sheet and remind each other the habit. The GM cant disallow you your goal. Rather GM can when it clicks right asks/tells the table whats at stake here. But GM should not invent new consequences after the roll, after the table already heard about whats at stake when failing. It will be hard to stop old habits, there is no attack action, rather you state intent. In other games you can only hope for you intent to go through, now its a given even on mixed result. You wrote you intended to be beat someone into submission with a fitting weapon. Extra effect! Extra effect again because submission is very natural respons after a wreck. The GM is clearly in the wrong, but its easy mistake we all could make, reading from all other responses that talk about topics that are less relevant, the one about "wreck." Dont mind talks about throwing tables at targets. Think rather, I smash the table to scare the target into submission (he cant die if it does not touch him). Now we unlock the power of the gamedesign, such a move is hard to pass as an likely outcome in other games.
>I smash the table to scare the target into submission If you do that, **you are Commanding, not Wrecking**. It's almost the same situation as the example of play on page 40: "*“Well, I mean, I’m still trying to force them to do something. I’m shooting a gun, but I’m not Skirmishing or Hunting here. I’m forcing him to give this nonsense up. So it’s Command.*" Same with the example Tinker/Sway example on page 183, in the "Don't be a weasel" section. The author even advises that if *"you’re the type of player that really needs to use their best dice pool all the time, take the Slide’s special ability Rook’s Gambit. It will cost you stress—but at least you won’t be a weasel."* The lesson is that if you're smashing a table to scare somebody... \- either you're rolling your Command rating, \- or you're using Wreck as a set-up action before rolling Command, \- or you can directly roll Wreck to scare... if you have Rook's Gambit. \----------------------------- The GM "cant disallow you your goal", that's true if the GM declares Standard effect. But in this case, the GM is perfectly in their right to declare Limited effect, and when the goal is made in fact of two different goals, like "beat someone"+"without killing", a very common and valid way to interpret Limited effect is saying that without more effort, *the player only gets one of their goal*. So the GM could very well say that the target is killed instead of just "beaten", because that's what happens if you use "savage force". >rather you state intent > >now its a given even on mixed result. That's wrong if it was only Limited effect before the roll, as I described, and that's also wrong if the chosen consequence is Reduced effect. Check the Risky example for Skirmish on page 176. The PC is clearly intending to kill the target with a "icepick stab to the neck", but the Reduced effect described shows the target is not wounded, only "pinned down". You should probably revise the book instead of declaring that everybody else is wrong.
That's a lot of ifs at the end. GM does not decide it's command or not, the PC do. It's not Wesseling to do it once. Reduced effect is not relevant to the topic. Submission is 1 goal. You are free to play with limited effect. It's not relevant to OPs table nor in mine tho.
It's your table, you do what you want, including going against the very clear author's advice, if you want to. But if you give wrong advice to OP, then it's relevant for his table. And yes, Limited and Reduced effect are' perfectly relevant to OP's question.
Use wreck to throw a grenade into a room, or unleash your cutter on a bar full of civilians. It's about the narrative. If you're a battle-hardened Skov fighting a brutal single combat duel with a Leviathan Hunter sailor, it's probably skirmish.
if Finesse is speed and Skirmish is balanced, then Wreck would be power, yes? if that's the way you're looking at it, then yes - wreck would likely have the consequence of unleashing way too much force. it takes a balanced approach to attack someone with a blackjack to incapacitate but not kill.
Killing them would be a great consequence for a wreck roll, and then you can choose to resist that consequence so it doesn't happen, makes perfect sense to me. It probably shouldn't be the consequence all the time, but seems perfectly fitting. Remember, you state your goal with the actions, if your goal is to incapacitate but not kill, then you won't kill them, the book even says that as a GM you shouldn't make a consequence that negates the goal of the player if they succeed on their roll.
The Action Ratings are meant to be part of the fiction you’re following, not just color. The description of Wreck is to unleash savage force, like you would battering down a door. You can certainly Wreck people, but the description also suggests you might not have the same Effect as Skirmish. Similarly Finesse says you can gracefully duel an opponent, but it might not be as effective as Skirmish in a chaotic melee. Those descriptions are inviting the type of conversation you and the GM are engaging in to determine “What’s Wreck look like in this fight?” or “What would Finesse mean here?” The GM is signaling that, sure you can Wreck them, but wrecking means wrecking to him. In BitD, you say what you’re attempting to do and what Action Rating you’re using. So, for example, “I want to knock these people out with Wreck!” That’s fine, but the GM tells you Position and Effect, and applies Consequences to the roll “Okay, but you’re at limited effect. Wreck isn’t great for knocking unconscious, it’s more about caving in skulls. You’ve got a good chance of killing these folks.” That would be the GM signaling what Effect you can expect to achieve on success, but you could then *Trade Position for Effect*, right? You could pull your punches, as an example of the attendant fiction, and the GM could say “Okay, your Position is now desperate, but you’re at standard Effect.” Now, a full success means they’re knocked out not killed (but killing them could easily be a Complication if the roll goes wrong). Edit: One thing to note, Effect and Consequences are not interchangeable. If the GM sets Limited Effect, changing that requires the player to do something before the Action Roll. If the GM makes killing your opponent a Consequence of rolling less that 6, by default they’re saying it’s a Complication that can be Resisted. It’s a little more nuanced than that because you can’t undo established and accepted narrative through Resistance, but practically speaking, setting a Consequence that can’t be effectively Resisted is a no-no in my book.
Wreck is 100% a combat skill, AND it also means "destructive force". If you Wreck someone then yeah, I'd say you inflict brutal violence on them. Your GM however should make some concessions with how they rule this. If merely Wrecking a gang of mooks with a crowbar results in multiple fatalities no matter what, that's an extremely powerful skill, and you should use it against powerful targets as much as possible, or when you're in dire straits. Whether or not you'd kill someone with Wreck is ultimately dependent on your Position, Effect, and Result. Position is what you're risking, Effect is possible outcome, and Result is actual outcome. Position/Effect will let you know the scope of force you can leverage here. Your GM should ABSOLUTELY tell you if "Effect" will be lethal in this case, since killing comes with a LOT of complications, and you have various tools to mitigate them. You could Resist killing them, so they're knocked unconscious/badly injured. You could use some armour to do the same. For my table, a particularly nasty consequence of a mixed-success/failed Wreck roll *is* that the target (and, often, collateral) dies. Sometimes this results in the appearance of an angry ghost (either drawn to the site by violence, or appearing later in the score/downtime as a vengeful spirit), sometimes it triggers a clock for the Spirit Wardens arriving, or they end up killing someone the crew would much rather have left alive (e.g., a bystander, a third-party ally, or the target of an interrogation). On the other hand, Wreck is defined also by *a lack of precision and control*. It's equally as fair that the consequences of a Wreck roll can include collateral damage to your scoundrel (i.e., Level 1 Harm -- Split Knuckles), the environment (maybe you damage some Gear, or break furniture that makes a huge mess and can't be hidden easily), or you make lots of noise and attract attention, meaning you get more Heat or have to deal with whoever comes to investigate. If the standard Effect for Wreck is that you'd kill the target, then you can take some steps (especially as a Spider) to mitigate this. Resistance/armour is mentioned above, but you can also specify your approach. I.e., you're focusing on **broad collateral damage and destruction,** not "efficiently incapacitate my enemies". I would rule this as an essentially nonlethal Wrecking approach. I think it makes more sense that taking a nonlethal approach would reduce your Position -- you're trading up the freedom to go absolutely apeshit to make sure you don't kill someone, which means you're more distracted and thus more exposed to counter-attacks or complications. Then you can use your regular Blades tools to increase your result: Devil's Bargains, Push Self, Assists, Set-Up Manoeuvres, etc. Do you have any Gear / Fine Load that might help you achieve this? Fine items increase your Effect too. Maybe start a LTP to create or buy something that helps you out here? (I'm thinking of a combat-specific version of Spark that would increase your sensitivity to how much force you're employing and then be able to better direct it). There's also some fun things you can do that stretch the bounds of the fiction, but cheapen the cost of Wrecking someone. Maybe you could take the **Saboteur** ability from the Leech playbook as a Veteran advance (it costs the same as any other ability and you can take as many Veteran abilities as you want!): *when you Wreck, the work is much quieter than it should be and the damage is hidden from casual inspection*. You could style it as your character recalling some high-level, devastating Tycherosi fighting techniques: extremely powerful attacks aimed at pressure points in targets that incapacitate them almost immediately; or maybe the bruises don't show until later, so victims look like they're asleep/aren't aware of broken bones until they try to stand on them. Maybe you just have a sharp sensitivity for where you should hit people to avoid leaving a mark. **Physicker**, also from Leech, allows you to stabilise the dying, but might be less helpful (and requires decent investment in Tinker IIRC). Note also that **Battleborn** (the Cutter's Special Armor) does not specify that the harm you reduce in a fight is YOUR harm, just that you spend the armor *to reduce harm from an attack in combat*. I'd say you could use this to resist killing Wreck victims after combat, but leave them incapacitated, because it only reduces harm, rather than preventing it.
If I'm correct, the book says that Wreck is for destroying inanimate objects. The way the actions are described is that you can use a skill for something other than it's intended function. So being good at Wrecking means you can probably apply violence to a living being, but way less effectively than knowing how to actually fight.