How Would Your Favorite Game System Handle This?

[TiQuinn]

Note 1: This is a thread about game design and preferences. The point is to talk about the different ways that different RPGs resolve situations.

Note 2: "Favorite" in the subject line can also be interpreted as "preferred" and might come from a game you WISH existed. Again, the point here is to talk about how things get done in play, as enabled by the rules and the mechanics of the game.

The Scenario: the classic "party heist" where one character is on over watch from a removed location, a stealthy character is meant to search for The Thing inside, while the face character keeps the Villain busy, with the Heavy uncomfortably shoved into a suit and ready for inevitable violence. Note that the genre does not matter: it could be cyberpunk, fantasy or modern espionage or anything else, as long as the structure and archetypes make sense.

How does your favorite game do this? How does it deal with nearly every character in the group essentially separated doing their own thing simultaneously? How do the rules interact with one character watching from afar and being the comms hub? How does it keep the Heavy engaged until violence starts? How does stealth work? Social interaction? What about being discovered by the guards or enemies or whatever? What happens if one character enters combat or conflict but the others don't?

If your favorite game can't really manage this sort of situation, why? Would you modify that system, or seek a game that isn't your favorite but does this better? Or would you simply not use this situation in play?

So I’ll use AD&D 2e for my answers (it’s probably my second favorite edition, but I feel like 5e has been kinda talked to death or at least more people have a sense of how it’d work.)

2e really doesn’t handle this elegantly as part of the system - it relies on the DM to adjudicate, and leans more on the “trust your DM” side of things, which I will admit can be painful if your DM is a 16 year old kid (as I was when I was first playing with my friends.)

Since our setting is generic D&D fantasy, the “comms” would have to be done magically with the wizard or cleric using a telepathy or sending spell (the latter probably via scrolls or magic item due to it being a 5th level spell). The limitation of how often you could use it might be interesting because it’d be more for emergencies than constant comms. Thieves could possibly use thieves cant and hand signals from across the room but all the characters would need to be fairly close by due to distance constraints.

The heavy would largely be working with reaction rolls based on their interactions, and it’d largely be a true role playing exercise, with the DM determining how the NPCs interact. We often used spot bonuses, meaning if the idea seemed plausible, the DM could give the player a plus or minus on the roll. So if the heavy is trying to intimidate some foppish noble at a party, they may get a +4 to their reaction roll if they’re trying to use their intimidating stature against the seemingly weak and unsuspecting NPC.

Stealth was always tricky. Typically, the only characters that could hide in shadows or move silently were thieves, but we always said any character could try to hide but they had to describe how they were doing so. Thieves simply could do so in extreme situations, meaning they had chances to succeed with their abilities even when it was impossible for a non-thief to do so. This might mean rolling for whether an NPC heard a noise or was surprised. Hear Noise was probably the best metric for determining if an NPC noticed someone, even if the name seemed like this would just be an auditory factor. We played kind of loose with this.

We always ruled that if combat began, all players were technically in combat and more importantly in initiative, though verbal and non-combat actions typically went first. Since the party is split, it would be on the DM to keep things moving very very quickly, and I’d try to bring the combat to a close quickly, or bring the party together.

Clearly, the system is very free form because it doesn’t have obvious rules for handling this stuff and so it may or may not be how every table would handle it, nor would it be for every group.

 

[Retros_x]

I’m curious here — what makes it harder to run a scene where the characters are not physically together? I’m not interested in keeping player knowledge limited to their own character’s knowledge — curious about what else causes issues. Is it that combat in many systems is time intensive, so people fighting have more spotlight time than non-combatants? Is it trickiness in jumping between scenes? Lack of support for actions alone?

None of your suggestions. Its just boring for many players because they can only roleplay in one of four scenes and they are on idle for the other 3 scenes. Its like running 4 different games in parallel. If I would run a scenario like this I would try to design a scenario where actions in one scene have immediate consequences for the full scenario, so there still is some sort of dynamic party interaction. Which is very hard to do and has nothing to do with the system IMO. If I successfully design such a scenario I could run it in 5e.

 

[billd91]

None of your suggestions. Its just boring for many players because they can only roleplay in one of four scenes and they are on idle for the other 3 scenes. Its like running 4 different games in parallel. If I would run a scenario like this I would try to design a scenario where actions in one scene have immediate consequences for the full scenario, so there still is some sort of dynamic party interaction. Which is very hard to do and has nothing to do with the system IMO. If I successfully design such a scenario I could run it in 5e.

I definitely agree. A table's success at splitting the party into different locations and taking care of different tasks is going to depend a lot on the players at the table and their patience with other players and GM. Drawn out interactions with complex mechanical systems in the game like combat, netrunning/hacking, operating drones, and so on have the potential to intensify any patience problems among the other players, but the root factor really is the need for players to accept extensive interactions between the GM and other players without their own participation.

 

[Umbran]

I guess I’m a little surprised that handling a split group seems so unusual and hard to do for people. I thought we had moved a bit behind the traditional D&D don’t-split-the-party stage of game play. It’s probably more unusual for me to have a session where everyone is always together for every scene, even in fantasy games. For a modern or a spy game, it’s really rare.

I’m curious here — what makes it harder to run a scene where the characters are not physically together?

There are a couple of issues I see frequently cited:

1) The usual "don't split the party" advice is mostly a tactical combat issue - if combat in your game is otherwise a hard tactical challenge, splitting the party is tantamount to suicide.

2) There is overhead in maintaining and describing separate scenes, and context-switching between them can increase that burden, with a result that the multiple scenes do not play out as quickly or as well than if they'd been played separately.

3) Many games already have a problem with how long turns take - splitting the party typically increases the time between taking a relevant action for most of the players.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

My preferred system these days is Cyberpunk Red.

First off, for something so complex, I'd probably have everyone roll initiative to keep things straight. Either that or focus on each player's part, one at a time (which is generally my preference when out-of-combat netrunning is going on, as I find skipping from PC to PC out of combat makes netrunning just take longer).

With that game's clear definitions of what constitutes an action, it should be fairly easy. The one spot where it breaks down (and really, almost any game system that's using initiative intended for combat out of combat) is the talky parts. How much can you say on your turn? A turn is three seconds, so that's not very much, but it's also incredibly unsatisfying and unwieldy to have the PC get as as far as "So I bet you're wondering what I'm..." and have to continue that next turn.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

None of your suggestions. Its just boring for many players because they can only roleplay in one of four scenes and they are on idle for the other 3 scenes. Its like running 4 different games in parallel.

So the issue is that when scenes are being run, you don't switch between them -- you complete a scene completely and then do the next one? And there is no interaction between scenes? Ok, I can see that that would be tedious, assuming scenes aren't more than a couple of minutes.

I have done that occasionally, but if I do I let people know so they can go and get some some drinks, leave the table and chat and so on. And I agree -- it is like running separate games. So I think that sets up an important principle: If you split the group up into multiple scenes, do at least one of the following:

• Make the scenes very short -- like 2-3 minutes
• Ensure that there is interaction between the scenes
• Don't resolve one scene, switch between them

 

[Gorgon Zee]

There are a couple of issues I see frequently cited:

1) The usual "don't split the party" advice is mostly a tactical combat issue - if combat in your game is otherwise a hard tactical challenge, splitting the party is tantamount to suicide.

If you are of the school that says one you have a written encounter, you cannot change it to react to the players' actions, yes, absolutely. For me, that is a failing of that style of play. To me, deciding on a suitable challenge the day before the game isn't any more of a privileged position than deciding it during play, but I know that's not true for all GMs.

2) There is overhead in maintaining and describing separate scenes, and context-switching between them can increase that burden, with a result that the multiple scenes do not play out as quickly or as well than if they'd been played separately.

Yup, you don't want a lot of detail and info on scenes that involve only one person. The burden is, however, only on the GM, so they should be able to adjust the amount of detail to their preferences.

3) Many games already have a problem with how long turns take - splitting the party typically increases the time between taking a relevant action for most of the players.

I have run simultaneous D&D4E combats, so, yeah. this can be true. Slow systems slow down even more ...

 

[RenleyRenfield]

How does your favorite game do this?

I feel like a parrot now... "People need to play more PBTA / FitD"

So many of these questions and D&D problems are 'solved' for decades ago...

Anyway, no snark, here is how this is easily played out in ...

Blades in the Dark
This game refined and built the 'heist' or 'score' concept. And here is how effortless and fun it is =
Everyone does NOT waste time dithering and arguing over how to do this scenario.
Instead they simply get few tidbits of info for context, then choose what their Approach is. (fight, sneak, magic, lies, etc etc)
They make a single roll for the group to see how the scenario is started, straight to the action, skipping over junk like dozens of nothing rolls to just get in place. The roll has modifiers based on how prepared everyone is (even the enemy) and how daring the schemes of the players is.
Roll.
Results of the roll are one of three results: you are in control, do your thing. or you are in a risky situation, deal with the risk then do your thing. or you are in deep sht and you need to think fast as you deal with problems (foreseen or unforeseen)

Then you roleplay and roll as normal, each character getting actions to resolve their part (keep cool, look for threats, snipe baddies, etc etc)
Anytime you come across some situation where a character may have done preparation or setup, you just Flashback to what they did, roll to see how that went, then back to the now with the results. You assume players and characters are competent, so rolls are made from that concept, and key cards, special invites, stow away items = all possible.

Why this is so much fun! =
- Last week a GM feel asleep while players dithered over plans to assault a castle, boring!!! This never happens in Blades. You assume characters, who live in the world, can think of useful things, and flashback to their preparations. Its engaging, it feels empowering, and the GM gets a ton of complications, mess, and combat as they want. Everyone wins.

..............................................

Powered by the Apocalypse
This could be Monster of the Week, Apocalypse World, Apocalypse Keys, Kult Divinity Lost, Masks teen titans, and many others....

PbtA is like a movie. And so people need to think of it like a action move (Avengers, Deadpool, Die Hard, etc etc). It's about everyone narrating what they do, then doing it - consequences be damned. A great GM in PbtA will remember to "be a fan of the characters" and "only call for rolls when failure is interesting." = these two GM rules, yes, rules the GM should abide by, are magic sauce to keep the game running smooth and the complications fun.

In the scenario, the player just do what they intend to do. No list of tedious Skills to wade through, no "Failed rolls do nothing" garbage. Every action matters, and every character has a chance to roleplay their goals.

PBTA is Not a 'task system." So you dont waste time with anything that has no consequences or that failing would end up being boring in a movie. If you do roll, its because you are doing big interesting things, and its uncertain how it will turn out.

So the Sniper rolls to take out a lone guard, if they do it, great they did it, nobody knows and that areas is secure. If they get complications, they take the guard out, but now the Big tough party member needs to quickly hide the body before patrols see, if they Miss, then the GM gets to add drama to the scene, which could be that the guy is still shot and taken out, but he was the one with the safe code, and now he is dead - you need a new way to get the safe code. And so on for each player character's actions... the results of their Moves can affect them or the scenario or others... its all built into the Moves system and GM moves too.

= the GM keeps the plot moving, assumes the characters can get sht done, and goes along with the intentions of the players. Now it feels like a James Bond film, and each Move the players make gives a lot of general advice/results on how to keep the scene dangerous, a high level of uncertainty, and let players characters act as if they are awesome
(unlike a character in "pass/fail" systems like D&D, where they went to kick a chair, failed the roll and somehow did nothing...., a great knight not even able to kick a chair... lame!!)

 

[Willie the Duck]

I’m curious here — what makes it harder to run a scene where the characters are not physically together? I’m not interested in keeping player knowledge limited to their own character’s knowledge — curious about what else causes issues. Is it that combat in many systems is time intensive, so people fighting have more spotlight time than non-combatants? Is it trickiness in jumping between scenes? Lack of support for actions alone?

I think the largest issue is splitting the focus/how to keep others engaged while the focus hovers on one character to the exclusion of others. It's the
Shadowrun/Cyberpunk 'hacker problem' writ large. While individual people have found solutions that work for them, overall I think it is one of those problems* where the community as a whole has not come up with a solution which has achieved majority or significant-plurality acceptance.
*similar to social rules, stealth&perception, and a few other rules that end up being perpetual bugaboos to the community (even if you or I personally have found our solution).

A lessor--but still significant--issue is managing synchrony. Strictly speaking, you can pretty easily manage two characters that are physically distant acting at the same time*. Other than the likelihood that it means they have more around them (people/places/things) with which to interact, it's not that different from them all being in the same room** except that they can't directly interact with each other/the things the other is directly addressing. However, once they start doing different things, the different things are going to start taking different amounts of time, each of which needs to be tracked. More than bookkeeping, that's also going to run into the issue of actions from one venue interrupting the actions of another. And there, most systems become pretty loose -- I can't recall if the Cortex System or Fate or Hero has rules for what happens if a social or search roll is interrupted, but I suspect that if it is there, it's something like 'the character can abort, or attempt to keep going at -x' or the like, as opposed to rules for what happens if the interrupt is 10% or 80% into the time the action typically takes (or even when in a successful search check an item might be found, etc.). This kind of stuff can get very complicated very fast, and thus systems that care about such things can get complicated in turn.
*at least as much as generally turn-based systems allow.
**also a question about communication and what each of them knows about the other's situation, etc. But that's going to be very genre- and scenario-dependent.

 

[billd91]

(unlike a character in "pass/fail" systems like D&D, where they went to kick a chair, failed the roll and somehow did nothing...., a great knight not even able to kick a chair... lame!!)

So... why is a knight rolling to... checks notes... "kick a chair"?