Fria Ligans forum

The group recon rules when sneaking as a group are pretty clear: the lowest rolls (with possible help bonuses from others.)
Personally I'm not a huge fan of this from "gameplay" perspective: the top recon guys do not get to shine unless they are going solo. Wouldn't this be the moment when the grizzled scout-sniper in camo paint leads the rest of the team into the enemy base using his uncanny skillset? I am not talking about realism and how sneaking around in a group works IRL, but if you want to go the realism route even then the "point man" and his abilities matter a lot when a military unit is moving.
The Alexandrian wrote a pretty good essay on Group Actions:
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/39 ... up-actions

So I have been thinking about alternative methods that would let the Recon guys shine while still penalizing the group if there is only one with the skill. So far the best I came up with is:
Highest Recon rolls. He can be helped by those who have Recon skill. Those in the group that do not have recon skill at all give -1 each to the roll.
Or to make it a bit harder maybe allow bonus die from only those who have same level of recon as the point man, rest are +0 and those with no recon give -1.
Any thoughts? Have you played with the idea of doing different "piggybacking" rolls for stealth?

I read the article you linked to and one of its main complaints was the skewing of odds when all characters make a Skill roll - i.e., if they must all succeed the probability of this is very low, and if only one must succeed the probability of this is very high. Thankfully, T2K4 don't suffer from this problem as only one character rolls for the entire group.

So the main complaint you have is not the skewing of probabilities when everyone in the group has to pass a test (or only one of them does) for the group to succeed, but rather that the best character for the job in the group doing the sneaking is left out of the test. To fix this you could take the approach used in "The One Ring" - i.e. everyone in the group rolls, and exceptionally good rolls can be used to help those that failed their test to pass it.

The One Ring Approach Applied to Twilight 2000 4th Edition

1) Instead of making an opposed roll, each member of the group trying to remain hidden (the active group) makes their own RECON roll.
2) As the test is no longer an opposed one, we have to reflect the relative skill of the groups with a DRM. How good a character is at RECON can be weighed by summing the die sizes of their RECON skill and INT attributes - e.g. RECON: A (INT: A) would be 24. If a member of the active group has the highest score, apply a +1 DRM. If a member of the passive group has the highest score, apply a -1 DRM. Although this sounds longwinded, in practice you should be able to eyeball what the DRM is quite quickly.
3) Each member of the active group applies all DRMs and makes their RECON roll, noting the number of successes rolled.
4) The cumulative number of successes rolled must equal or exceed the number of members in the group for the group as a whole to pass the test.

[EDIT] I realise that everyone rolling is what the article referred to as "skewing of the result" but higher degrees of success by some group members hopefully mitigates this.

How about have everyone roll and succeed or fail individually? E.g., when ambushing, some might get first initiative as per ambush rules, while some would need to roll initiative with the ambushed.

And the same thing in standard sneaking: some would manage to stay undetected while others are exposed.

One Ring approach is interesting.
I would like to avoid ”everyone rolls” mainly for speed of play. I much prefer group actions to be solved with a single roll.
My main issue is that characters who have invested in recon amd whose chatacter might be defined by it do not get their moment to shine in thr spotlight despite their specialty sinmply becausesomeone else sucks at stealth.
Think if combat was resolved by ”the one with lowest ranged combat rolls” how would that go over with those combat oriented characters?

Personally, I am 100% behind the RAW as I've used that as my personal houserule for mass-sneaking in RPG's for decades now.

HOWEVER, if you did want to make the highest Recon character more important and have them play a more "Point Man" type role, how about instead of making the lowest Recon character roll, you make the highest Recon character roll.

BUT, you require that he has an equal or higher number of successes as the number of players sneaking.

So, if 4 of the players are sneaking towards an enemy encampment, the highest Recon player has to roll, but he needs 4 successes to succeed.

So, no opposed check, but only a straight up fail/succeed type roll.

(or, if you want it harder, make an opposed roll and deduct all successes that the enemy rolls from your players successes)

This way you utilize the highest Recon player and they get to shine, but you also reflect on the fact that a larger group is harder to help sneak.

As a complete side note to this, I'd like to point out that Recon isn't *just* used for sneaking, so a Recon character will get to shine in LOTS of different situations. You use Recon to keep watch during camp, you use it to keep a lookout during travel, you use it to hunt, you use it to act as a forward observer for indirect fire, you use it to detect landmines, you use it to detect an ambush, you use it to spot NBC contaminations, you use it to conceal your camp, and more. And that's not to mention the advantages that many of the recon specialities give, like having the ability to draw two initiative cards and pick one or using recon to investigate a scene of a crime or battle. Recon might actually be one of the most used skills in the game.

Just as a small example in my latest session, the player ran into a small roadblock by a bridge.

Recon guy got to use Recon to spot the roadblock while travelling to avoid just running into them.

Recon guy went with 2nd highest Recon player to sneak up and scout out the location (roll for 2nd highest recon)

Recon guy gets to use Recon to identify the troops at the bridge (soviet soldiers).

Recon guy sneaks closer to listen in on their conversation (Recon guy gets to shine again, since he's sneaking solo).

Recon guy rolls for recon to hear what they say (again, shining with his Recon).

Recon guy sneaks back to 2nd highest Recon guy (again, shining solo).

They both Sneak back to all players and devise a plan (2nd best recon gets to roll).

They decide to set up an ambush in two stages.

First stage: Recon and 2nd highest Recon sneaks up to previous position again (2nd best recon rolls).

Second stage: First group overwatch while the 2nd group sneaks up to their position, in case the Soviets hear the 2nd group sneaking.

Turns out, 2nd group manages to sneak up without incident and they execute the ambush (which turns out really badly due to bad rolls and only one of the enemies are killed or even suppressed in the first volley of fire).

Either way, Recon guy got to *shine* at least 5 times out of that entire encounter.

I think "Recon guy" gets enough shining without rolling for the entire group just to show off how great he is at recon.

Naturaöly there are many uses for all skills, that is not the issue here.
My main ”problem”, as minor as it is, is that group stealth is not handled in a very empowering way.
A group of 4 sneaking areoun, 3 have RECON A and one F, so that is rolled (as an extreme example).

Think of this from the point of view of a scout sniper player who has invested heavily into recon. He would like to lead the group through the spotlight covered wheat field in poland. But the fat mechanic of the group lets them roll D and at the most the scout gives +1.

VS

The same spotlight covered field is crossed by the scout leading and helping the fat mechanic narrowöy avoid the enemy guards.

The latter scenario will feel much more cooler for the scout AND the fat mechanic who doesn’t feel like he is totally ruining everyones day by not having recon.

Now how to best achieve this mechanically is what I am after here, without skewering the game balance too much. If I require extra successess from recon guy for extra persons, the probabilities will drop rapidly especially with groups of 4-5.
If anyone comes up with other mechanical solutions that wouldn’t throw balance off too much, I’d like to hear them.

It’s an interesting one because there’s different rules for group recon Rolls vs group rolls in general - I see why buy I also could see why you could just use the rules for group rolls.

From memory, blades in the dark has the lead player roll and everyone else rolls too, with the lead player taking “stress” for each failure of the team but the success or failure of the sneak roll being determined by the leader. Tw2k isn’t really going work this way because you don’t have stress - but it’s an interesting thing to consider.

Taking this

HOWEVER, if you did want to make the highest Recon character more important and have them play a more "Point Man" type role, how about instead of making the lowest Recon character roll, you make the highest Recon character roll.

So, no opposed check, but only a straight up fail/succeed type roll.

(or, if you want it harder, make an opposed roll and deduct all successes that the enemy rolls from your players successes)

This way you utilize the highest Recon player and they get to shine, but you also reflect on the fact that a larger group is harder to help sneak.

I think the idea here is you want to make it engaging, and have the best and worst recon people being part of the roll in some way.

Perhaps:
- The leader rolls, they can get help from anyone else as normal .. where it makes sense - which could include people staying back to observe - but I’m thinking not everyone should be able to help because helping in recon implies that you might not actually be doing the sneaking also…. Maybe ?
- Leader rolls, every success >1 is someone that the leader gets through ok - they don’t need to roll
- anyone else that then has to roll because the leader didn’t get them through ok - then has a decision to make - do they try to sneak also (and roll individually) or stay back

My idea is that it should feel like a movie - the leader runs point, maybe helped by someone who is in a watchtower, or a building corner observing (the sniper in most movies). The leader works out the plan, starts to shuttle people across, giving them guidance, telling them when to stop, when to dash etc etc. The leader does this until they run out of time, an enemy on patrol becomes into play (i.e. when the successes are used up) - after which everyone looks at each other and then the rest make a decision whether to scramble / sneak across too knowing that there is a risk (because the leader, having no more successes, can assess the risk). You’d obviously help the worst players sneak first. The more terrible players the more of a burden the leader has.

This way might work for the situation where a group is sneaking into an enemy camp, for example.

For very large groups or for when the sneak is a bit more passive, perhaps it’s simply the leader doing their roll to find a path / way that will work for the group, and then they have essentially performed a point-man-scout type of outcome. They could be helped by whoever comes along to help scout (at the risk of them being found out and attacked while away from the main group). If successful, they found a way.

This way might work for the situation where a group needs to sneak across a river near an enemy camp, but they really just need to find a safe and concealed route, far enough away and away from any patrolling guards, but they are not really trying to get close to the enemy but rather find a path without bing spotted.

Naturaöly there are many uses for all skills, that is not the issue here.
My main ”problem”, as minor as it is, is that group stealth is not handled in a very empowering way.
A group of 4 sneaking areoun, 3 have RECON A and one F, so that is rolled (as an extreme example).

Think of this from the point of view of a scout sniper player who has invested heavily into recon. He would like to lead the group through the spotlight covered wheat field in poland. But the fat mechanic of the group lets them roll D and at the most the scout gives +1.

VS

The same spotlight covered field is crossed by the scout leading and helping the fat mechanic narrowöy avoid the enemy guards.

The latter scenario will feel much more cooler for the scout AND the fat mechanic who doesn’t feel like he is totally ruining everyones day by not having recon.

Now how to best achieve this mechanically is what I am after here, without skewering the game balance too much. If I require extra successess from recon guy for extra persons, the probabilities will drop rapidly especially with groups of 4-5.
If anyone comes up with other mechanical solutions that wouldn’t throw balance off too much, I’d like to hear them.

I mean, I suppose it depends on if you're playing in a realistic manner or playing by the rule of cool.

The game is geared more towards realistic than rule of cool, so that's why the RAW is the way it is.

But if you want to go with rule of cool, then you can do that instead.
How about rolling the lowest Recon, but adding a bonus based on the highest Recon? Maybe have the highest recon roll and any successes he has above the first lets the lowest recon upgrade their dice one step?

But it really does seem like you're running by rule of cool, so you'll most likely have a lot of other issues with the game as well.

My main issue with your reasoning, though, is that you seem hyper focused on the "scout sniper player". Let him shine when he's doing solo stuff. There'll be plenty of opportunities for him to shine. I think this puts too much focus on "that guy". You talk about the fat mechanic feeling like he let down the group because he didn't invest in recon. But your solution will also mean that he'll always feel that the "recon guy" has to carry his deadweight around until he's increased recon. Or, in the worst case, he won't even put effort into recon since the "recon guy" will always carry him.

My idea is that it should feel like a movie
This. Exactly this.
Your idea of leader extra successes being other persons being "under the wing" is something that I think I will try. It will make for exciting gameplay and give the recon guy a chance to shine and makes players do hard choices: Who do we leave to fend on his own to cross the field? Thank you all for your input!

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.