Another item from the Q&A – that rose some question marks- is that its been mentioned that some rules are implemented to motivate conflicts between Blades of the same crew.
The example given been that one bladebook (Slide) gains XP from corrupting wares and stuff of the enemy while another bladebook (hound) gains XP from destroying wares and goods of the enemy.
It has been mentioned that its intentionally designed to stir up discussions at the table. Though I am not sure if they are good discussion to be had. In the end one player (character) will get the XP and one player (character) won’t get the XP. With the one who doesn’t get XP not receiving anything to lower the blow of basically loosing and falling (a bit) behind.
Is there an obvious way to avoid this predictable frustration?
I am as well conflicted that the player who got the Hound may not only oppose the player of the Slide in regards of character advancement but maybe even the group as whole as his condition to kill someone will result in one more heat dice and may raise the noise level.
(as a worst case scenario) The Hound might either try to get some character advancement, and basically hurt the crew more or less, or he might do the most awesome stories with crew in mind but won’t get XP / character progress.
I see your point. Hmmm…maybe they trade off, depending on the score? Or, a mix? Leaving, say, some of a diluted drug while destroying the rest? If it was in high demand to begin with, a dwindled supply could start a bidding war. Once it’s found that it was cut, presumably to save the supply, well…bad news for the dealers! Or what about weakening a foe by assassinating the loyal while stealing the weaker-willed? That it pushes some thought as to how everyone gets a piece is something I really like.
This is great feedback, Jennifer. Thanks!
There is no honour among thieves.
Great dissemination Jennifer! I personally like the tangential XP goals. I particularly like the tendency of the hound to act ‘as a lone wolf’.
If it becomes frustrating for a player, then the resulting table discussion on ‘what we should chase as our goal’ becomes the impetus for a PLAN, rushing the players headlong through the planning stage into ‘in media res’ of the next score.
If a player is really bummed about missing out on XP at the behest of another, suggest they offer a flashback scene – paying stress, making few rolls and achieving their XP goal separate to the main score actions.
Acting as a lone wolf might be a problem in a game that rewards and caters to group/crew play.
Some of the feedback I got was that I already cut to much into roleplay and rush scenes. Thus I think rushing the players may not work. If not for the cut then because the Slide in this case would probably still like to go through with his action and wouldn’t appreciated if it just got cut & jumped.
I am not so sure about the flashback scene. On the one hand because most of the flashback scenes came in game from our Slide. On the other hand, either blowing up stuff that isn’t related to the main score may feel arbitrary, while blowing up the stuff in that scene would be contradicting-
I just read the Cutter and Hound advancements. They might seem contradictory but it really depends on the score. If it’s to capture enemy resources then it’s simply that the Hound gets a tick. A score to burn a Red Sash temple to the ground? The Cutter will get an easy tick, but that’s simply because the score involved a cut-and-dried mark for them. What the crew chooses to do is going to often play right into a certain playbook from time-to-time. That’s fine.
If, at any part of the score, infiltration was involved, a Lurk gets a tick. Sweet-talked a potential witness into helping? Tick for a Slide. Did the Hound follow a mark to their hidden drug den? Tick. You get the idea. If certain aspects of a game seem to favor one playbook over another too often that, to me, seems more a group bit than potential system flaw.
It may seem as if a Slide can just swap identities willy-nilly to tick their playbook a bunch of times, but I don’t see this as viable, at least not without long-term risk. This is simply due to the fact that a successful identity scam will have a risk, which means a roll, which means a danger. Sure, it could be Controlled, but is that realistic or interesting? If you’re spending a bunch of time impersonating others on your own time, you’re not pulling a score and you’re not helping the crew. Successful impersonation could be part of gathering information or a flashback, but on its own…without a group benefit…you’re more a crazy actor than a crew member! 🙂
And let’s be honest if, for example, a Cutter stabs someone simply for a playbook tick, they’re an ass and probably not the player you want at the table. It’s the group dynamic of sharing that’s important, just as with any RPG. For example, making sure a Scholar PC in a game of Edge of the Empire isn’t dragged along with a group of violent, murder-hobos. At least not without a chance to shine just as often out of combat.
Fantastic examples Ben. Something like this would be very helpful in the book John 🙂
I will use them for sure!
Thank you! To be fair, it’s Jennifer’s original post that got me thinking. 🙂