Forum

Let us know how it goes!

My take away from playing various systems for many years and then recently getting a little into apocalypse / blades type systems is - the latter are nice because they really only work if you 1) set the scene and define the goal for a task; 2) give the PCs meaningful choices that have different risks and outcomes ; 3) let them decide what they’ll do with this info - then roll. Because these systems need this to happen it gets you into this mindset by necessity.

I find some good ideas from these games are:
1) if you offer help to the task, then you might also are exposed to the consequences of failure also ….. eeeek !
2) a failure might be because some strange and unexpected event took place - not because the PCs are not good enough (which introduces a twist to the story)
3) telegraphing threats and then getting the PCs to decide how they respond, but making it similar to an extended test - but it evolves over time depending on how they’ve approached it and how successful / unsuccessful they have been
4) using this telegraphing to set the expectations of what failure might look like - which stops the “I failed ….. can I just roll again” type thing

E.g. - for the stealth, once the leader has gotten some of them across, maybe there are 2 PCs left to make the attempt. You describe how the leader gets them across, all dramatic like, then describe how they are about to bring the 2nd last PCs when a spark of light just 15 m away stops you all in your tracks. You had failed to notice the soldier leaving his tent who just lit a cigarette. He’s not looking in your direction, yet, but if he turns he will spot you ……. PCs …. “What do you do?”

I totally agree with all of that -- outright stealing more ideas and mechanics from Blades and bringing them to T2K definitely improved my games!

In this case, I like to land somewhere in the middle. On the one hand it is a game. On the other hand there is a fair dose of realism, and I have spent many many hours creeping in the woods at night leading small recce patrols. Invariably, a good chunk of those hours is shooting dirty glares at the one guy who can't manage to plant his feet softly or keeps tripping on shit.

I try to encourage and enable the players in my game to do the smart thing, the thing which their characters as hardy survivors ought to know how to do, even if the player does not. So in this particular example I've tended to use the Recon sneak roll as something like Blades' engagement roll -- it determines how favorable the initial situation is going to be for you. This is cool and thematic, but it also has the enormous side benefit of letting you skip a lot of tedious boring stuff.

So, combining these ideas I'd say: a modifier is applied based on the enemy's alertness/equipment (and the group's! Backpacks and unnecessary gear make all this much harder!), everyone rolls, and bonus successes can be shared with others in the group. Then I'd offer the group choices/devil's bargains which enable tactical choices. "Most of the group is moving swiftly and quietly past the patrols, but Jimmy Two-Left-Legs keeps making noise. You're sure he's going to get you all caught. How do you want to proceed?" Then the group can decide if they all stay together but probably raise suspicion early, or if they split the group so the sneaky squirrels can get in easier while Jimmy does overwatch or something else.

It is bit off the tangent, but I have to comment what Oddball wrote:

The game is geared more towards realistic

I am not sure I agree. The YZE in general, also the TW4e, is not so much about simulating realism as it is about "game realism". With this I mean that realistically gunfights pretty often leave people permanently injured, especially if shot multiple times. TW does not and neither do the gunfights leave people bedridden for numerous months when recovering. Why? Because gamewise that would suck. Same thing with being shot with antitank rifles... Also diseases and infections work pretty much differently irl but that is ok because gamewise realism in that area would also suck.

YZE falls somewhere in the middle in the specturm of "Story vs game mechanics". Then again you can definitely run it hard core either way, depending on your tastes.

Now back to realism regarding "stealth", like I originally wrote, even when realistically approaching the subject of group of soldiers moving with low signature in enemy territory trust me: the point man and his skills is the one who counts far far more than the fat clumsy guy in the rear of the group.

Well, realism can be to various degrees.

My point was that the game is geared *more* towards realism than towards *rule of cool/movie* type action. Not saying that the game is simulating realism. Hell, none of the previous editions did that, no matter how nitty-gritty they got with the details. Because simulating realism is super-complicated. Still doesn't mean the game is geared towards the characters sliding across a bar dual-wielding pistols shooting down dozens of bad guys in a cinematic type action scene. There's a balance, and I feel like your expectations are leaning more towards the latter. (AKA, you want to play Chuck Norris' Delta Force instead of Generation Kill. Neither are completely realistic, but one certainly leans heavily into the rule of cool.

I am not leaning into John Wick type of campaign. That is not the issue.
The point simply was, that the group stealth mechanisms were not very fun gameplaywise imo.
After running Blades in the Dark and Band of Blades for almost 100 sessions I learned a lot more about GM:ing. Mainly that the idea should not be so much totally about "story first" or "realism first." It should be about gameplay first. This is a form of entertainment. It should entertain. Making needless rolls with nothing at stake is not good gameplay, as one example.
With RAW group stealth roll the mechanics were not very uplifting: they do not let the groups stealth expert shine and instead of making a exciting moment storywise it is more about "do we leave clumsyass behind or do we hope he rolls better this time?" decision, which is not really fun gameplay wise either. Also imo the rules were not realistic, according to my military experience in movement in woods for example.
Anyways I am sure many find the current mechanics adequate or even good for their purposes. I was looking for an option that would A) Be more engaging storywise and decision wise, B) Would highlight the stealth experts in the group giving them their hour in the spotlight.
I found several alternatives and will definitely test them out! Thank you all!

The rules make a token gesture to this, early on. They state some equivalent of "only roll when failure is likely and interesting" and make a similar token gesture to "fail forward" design.

Unfortunately, this feels rather pasted on, and it's hard to make much of what to do with this excellent advice until you've amassed a lot of experience.

FitD games are very explicit and excellent about this sort of thing. For one thing, their dice mechanic explicitly allows and encourages it. However, these are definitely more narrative games and with more cinematic perspectives. A bit of friction results when you try to translate that to a game that has its roots in a sort of simulationism (or at least a lot of people want to believe it does). What FitD games get absolutely right is the core premise that your character is good at what they do. The assumption is never that they will simply fail, because they're a hugely skilled and resourceful person. That perspective is a perfect fit for T2K and I'd like to see it incorporated more.