While I appreciate FitD style, it breaks down right here: the group is NOT. Engaged in a single approach. Every team member is engaged in a separate approach. What now?
How Would Your Favorite Game System Handle This?
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
kronovan
Adventurer
The TTRPG I regularly run that would handle the OP scenario in a structured way with subsystems is Savage Worlds. You could run it easily via its already mentioned dramatic tasks, as well as its quick encounters and social conflicts. I've had little problem runnning such scenrios in a timely manner with SWADE. FATE would be another TTRPG I'd consider having the built-in features to do it, provided the GM has put some thought into scene/location aspects and obstacles.
I will say this...IME it's easier to run such parallel scenarios via VTTs. That's because the GM has alternate/private voice channels, hidden GM-to-Player text chat and hidden player dice rolls readily available. And with the rolls automated, such scenarios tends to run a bit quicker. It's why I prefer running campaigns and genres whrre such scenarios are likely to be frequent, online via VTT.
I will say this...IME it's easier to run such parallel scenarios via VTTs. That's because the GM has alternate/private voice channels, hidden GM-to-Player text chat and hidden player dice rolls readily available. And with the rolls automated, such scenarios tends to run a bit quicker. It's why I prefer running campaigns and genres whrre such scenarios are likely to be frequent, online via VTT.
RenleyRenfield
Adventurer
So glad you asked hehe...So... why is a knight rolling to... checks notes... "kick a chair"?
the situation was "You walk into a tavern and a noble mocks you. What do you do?"
So I thought that I didn't want to kill anyone, or unsheath my sword, so I would just kick the leg of his chair to either unseat him, break the leg/chair, or in he least get him to spill is ale all over himself... DC was 14, I rolled a 12... nothing happened.
In terms of history, note that the Cortex-based Leverage RPG was running heists back in 2010, while BitD was published in 2017.
The two games have very different approaches to the challenges of the genre, but BitD didn't invent the idea of getting to the action quickly.
RenleyRenfield
Adventurer
You are incorrect, by both rules and reading.
The approach is not "per player"... The Approach is the overall plan of how to kick off this event. It sets the scene and the current situation.
Each player absolutely then gets to roll dice on their own ability and actions as to how they are interacting with the current situation.
The scenario as the OP stated = is already under way! This is good! So what we are doing is setting the stakes, generating risks, and checking for complications at hand.
The goal in FitD / PBTA is to =
- Stop players from trying to spend 2 hours second-guessing the GM and every aspect of the scenario. (only for the GM or rolls to negate most of that anyway)
- Assume the scenario presents risks to the characters, and see if the risks are now or upcoming.
- Get straight into the action, and not waste time with rolls that just lead to where we are now anyway.
So which Approach do you use?
"Nothing" should never be the result of a check like that. Failure should have consequences.
RenleyRenfield
Adventurer
(while I agree with you) This is not mechanically correct. There is no such rule or statement in Dungeons and Dragons. (I wish there was)
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
There were a lot of parts to the original question, but I'll focus on the part(s) about how to handle separated parties and compartmentalized knowledge.
Here I've learned a lot from @iserith, who unfortunately seems to no longer be part of this community (not surprising, considering the savagery of the responses to his contributions). In a nutshell, I make zero attempt to police players on this. If Character A gets into trouble, and Character B's player wants to go rushing to help, I don't have a problem with that. I could ask them to rationalize their decision, but I leave it up to them to offer that rationalization if they want to.
The only real objection I ever hear to this approach is "but that's metagaming!" (Using the specific/narrow definition that it means conflating player knowledge with character knowledge). But if you don't really care about that, then it's not a problem.
(Also, in my experience, some/much/most of the time Player B will roleplay ignorance and not go rushing off, anyway, even though they know that it would be totally kosher to do so.)
A related objection would be something about the believability of the fiction. But in my opinion that's a pretty predictable, mechanistic definition of believable fiction. Unlikely coincidence appears in good fiction all the time.
The last objection I can think of is that splitting the party is supposed to be a risky decision, not to be taken lightly. But there's no guarantee that Character B will actually get to Character A's location easily or quickly. And rushing there might cause even more complications. (E.g., now they are BOTH in solo combat! Yay!). I don't know exactly what those complications might be...it would depend on the scenario. But, yeah, splitting the party is still a meaningful decision. And really that's all I care about: players making meaningful decisions.
Here I've learned a lot from @iserith, who unfortunately seems to no longer be part of this community (not surprising, considering the savagery of the responses to his contributions). In a nutshell, I make zero attempt to police players on this. If Character A gets into trouble, and Character B's player wants to go rushing to help, I don't have a problem with that. I could ask them to rationalize their decision, but I leave it up to them to offer that rationalization if they want to.
The only real objection I ever hear to this approach is "but that's metagaming!" (Using the specific/narrow definition that it means conflating player knowledge with character knowledge). But if you don't really care about that, then it's not a problem.
(Also, in my experience, some/much/most of the time Player B will roleplay ignorance and not go rushing off, anyway, even though they know that it would be totally kosher to do so.)
A related objection would be something about the believability of the fiction. But in my opinion that's a pretty predictable, mechanistic definition of believable fiction. Unlikely coincidence appears in good fiction all the time.
The last objection I can think of is that splitting the party is supposed to be a risky decision, not to be taken lightly. But there's no guarantee that Character B will actually get to Character A's location easily or quickly. And rushing there might cause even more complications. (E.g., now they are BOTH in solo combat! Yay!). I don't know exactly what those complications might be...it would depend on the scenario. But, yeah, splitting the party is still a meaningful decision. And really that's all I care about: players making meaningful decisions.
RenleyRenfield
Adventurer
Whichever one is agreed upon by the group as to "how we got into this scenario overall".
In the described OP, it sounds to me like every character by and large agreed to "Stealth" their way into position. Be it by actual stealth, or a suit to slip in, or being just another guest = they all appear to be in position via "trying to not get noticed yet"... but that's just one interpretation.
To follow up on that then, the Engagement roll would then determine = "did you all make it into position without someone or something complicating matters or presenting a problem?" ; this sets the scene up for everyone to know: where they are, what is at risk, and what challenges they need to address right away if any. And it does this by jumping right on in "in media res" (kinda like Ocean's 11 and Die Hard does in many scenes) : )
Similar Threads
