39 thoughts on “Am I correct in interpreting that a PC cannot lead two consecutive Lead a Group Actions?”

  5. Let him reroll is lame and a bit repetative, let the cutter be on point as they stumbled on a guard, to murder him. Or let the Whisper cloak them in shadows to tick the clock forth.

  6. You actually can. When you do your first lead action, you pass point to another pc, but at anytime a charter can gain a stress to give or take the point role, so you can take point a 2nd consecutive time to do another lead action.

  7. Josephe Vandel, I don’t see it as a reroll, I see it as a separate action on another part of the fiction. I’m happy that it can be rationalised why the lead is being leapfrogged, but why shouldn’t the Lurk be able to see the infiltration through to completion?

    David Rothfeder, I believe as backup you can face the danger of an effect after the action has been rolled, or you can assist with the action, you don’t think you can’t actually lead the action from a backup position?

  8. As Josephe says the rule is there to keep it interesting and involve everyone in each facet of the story. Otherwise all games would be boringly the same: “Ok we are sneaking in so the Lurk will roll until we succeed. After that we have some Guards to deal with so the Cutter will roll.”

  10. There is specifically a blurb about changing whose on point without taking a leadership action. It is not taking the lead action while your on backup, it is a way for backup characters to get on point when they need to.

  12. No. If you are working as a team, you use the teamwork rules and you switch off being on point. This is, as has already been mentioned, a spotlight sharing mechanism, without which teamwork turns into “the Lurk rolls stealth the entire time for the infiltration challenge” stuff. However, the “setup action” on point rules exists for exactly this sort of situation. It lets someone without much skill in the “main” area of the challenge take a moment to show what they are good at, and then pass on point back to the expert while giving them a bonus. It’s a win all around and makes playing “optimally” much more interesting. Use it, love it.

  13. I’m not sure I follow the first part of your post? Being on point is (part of) the teamwork rules?

    Teamwork

    When the team of PCs engages in an operation together, the GM asks the group “Who’s on point?” One of the players chooses to put their character in the point role.

    Surely it should be GM/player choice to see who’s in the spotlight?

  14. OK, so readying through the tea works rules again, I think I can see how it happens! 🙂

    The Lurk can conduct the first part of the infiltration, when this is partially complete he hands the reigns over to another, who can then (if he wished to) set up the Lurk to complete the infiltration. Thus allowing the Lurk to shine doing what he’s meant to, and also engage others in the spotlight too.

  15. You got it! Also remember the Lurk (and other players) can also choose to roll for an action without engaging one of the team work actions, and thus keep the lead focused on the Lurk until they are ready to do a big teamwork action.

    Also remember you don’t always have to complete clocks sequentially and clocks can be more general and open to different avenues of completion. For instance you could have a clock for Guards and one for Locks. The Lurk on point could choose to use their team work to attempt to get through the locks. Having partially succeeded at the Locks clock they get into the building but still have other locked doors to deal with. The Slide takes point and walks up to a pack of guards to distract them setting it up for the Cutter to take point then to murder them from behind. Now both the Guard and Lock clocks are partially filled but not completed. The Lurk then decides to take point and get past the final lock into the vault. Alternately the Whisper could summon an old poltergeist they know to tumble the lock mechanisms or if the Lurk fails to get he last Lock the Cutter could step in and bash the door down with mayhem. Once the Lock clock is done they’re in but still have some Guards to deal with.

  16. I dont try to force some Mechanic spotlight cicle. But try to keep the narrative vivid and flowing.

    If the Cutter cant onehitkill the demon, than its giving the whisper a spot on Casting a binding spell, changing to the Hound giving it the final headshot, boosted with his predator ability and taking in stress by aiding the whisper before.

  18. The point I am making is two fold:

    #1: You only choose who is ‘on point’ when starting your teamwork action.  You don’t get to repeatedly be on point, that’s against the rules.

    #2: The reason for this is that it’s more interesting than the same character rolling the same skill repeatedly to get through a challenge, and what’s more, the setup action rules make it so that it’s not even OPTIMAL for the same person to roll the same skill repeatedly.  So don’t relax the rule.

  21. Phil Garrad

    I thought that’s what I was answering, both times, along with some ‘why’ but as long as you’ve got it sorted in your head, no worries.

  22. I think a PC should be able to lead as many consecutive actions as the group desires, and those actions can be the same one over and over if desired.

    Why? Otherwise, the system is forcing the fiction in a way I don’t think is helpful. If a player or GM wants to do this, and is told it can’t be done, the question “why not?” is perfectly in order. If the answer is “spotlight management” that’s terrible; spotlight management should not be governed by rules, but by the way the group plays together. That’s part of the GM’s responsibility, and the responsibility of the players, and I don’t like seeing it heavy handed and forced in rules.

    It’s not repetitive if the situation, context, and stakes are different (even if the action is the same each round.)

    Stress accumulation is what should motivate the switch in leadership, or facing different challenges. If you’ve got experts, use them.

    Yes, you can change things up in the fiction to make sense of shifting the spotlight around. But what if the group doesn’t want to? Should the GM force them to? Because of an abstract concept of spotlight management?

    You can have different characters involved in different parts of the adventure in lots of ways. And sometimes filling a clock or two may be the only part of the adventure where one character really gets to shine. So yes, let’s do spotlight management, but not in such a short-sighted way.

  23. So, basically “You should be bored if it’s fictionally appropriate”?

    I disagree; This game is not trying to simulate the world. It’s trying to simulate a certain type of fiction, and in that type of fiction, characters change roles.  So in order to generate the fiction, the on point character changes.

    To put it another way:

    It’s not “You’re still on point in the world, so ignore the rule and stay on point.”

    It’s “The rules say the on point character changes, so something should happen in the fiction to cause that to occur.”

    The rules are driving the fiction here.

  24. I think it goes too far to say that if one person is on point for three rolls everyone else is bored. Even if the person on point changed, the rest of the group would still be backup. That feels like an overstatement to me.

    It’s not about simulating the world, it’s about giving someone a chance to shine if that’s where they shine.

    I agree that the current form of the rules forces the rule to drive the fiction. I’m not sure this is the best place for that to happen.

    I’ve got players (including myself) who feel a certain level of disengagement if they feel like it doesn’t really matter what they’re saying they do, as long as they can justify an advantageous dice pool and make a roll. The fiction will wrap around the mechanics. So, the fiction is clearly less important than the mechanics. We learned that lesson playing FAE briefly.

    I’m not saying you can’t have a great time changing point with every action. I AM saying that there should be a better reason than spotlight management, forcing the situation to change its nature because someone new is up to bat.

    I would rather see the GM throw new fictional description in as they’re filling the clock, to inspire a change, than say “Now you have to change because rules.” You could even have a player say “I want to take point and use my Sway in the middle of this tower infiltration; is there a guard to persuade?” That’s different than a term limit.

  25. Andrew Shields The way I see it, the reason that the On Point has to change is because it’s an action stealth game. Think of it as a film. You wouldn’t have a film where one person keeps attempting to pick a lock on a door over and over again. One person would try to pick it and when they weren’t successful or only got part way through then another character would get impatient and step in to bash the door down (Mayhem) or point out that you can just ignore the locks and climb up to a window (Prowl) or quickly fashion a better lock pick specifically for this door (Tinker) or talk to the ghost on the other side to let them in (Attune). The rule is there to create this sort of narrative, to make it more interesting!

  26. Colin Fahrion I guess for me that’s a short-sighted take. We are talking about multiple rolls against a single clock, not the focus of an entire adventure.

    Adding variety can be switching people on point, yes. It could also be switching to a different clock; you are working the locks, but suddenly a guard comes around the corner and we’re back to the guards clock.

    And there’s the issue of stress. If one person is sucking in the lead, they’ll be replaced for the sake of the group’s stress. If not, maybe it’s good to have one person crushing it to get on to the rest of the story.

  27. I would rather see something that dictated a crew cannot make a roll on the same clock twice in a row. In between, there must be either an interruption to deal with (situational or simple roll), or switching to a different clock, or a complication (as with entanglements).

    There’s your spotlight management, and it makes the heist more eventful (to fix the supposed boredom and cinematic problem.)

  28. Andrew Shields  Yeah switching clocks at the same time as switching On Point is a great tactic but also I think it’s a great idea to encourage people to tackle a single clock from different angles as I mentioned. This is what this rule encourages. Also don’t overlook the On Point Setup move. It’s great. Another player can do something to make it easier and then pass the baton back to the Lurk to finish the job. 

    Forcing a change in On Point even for the same clock is simulating the world (not that that is a requirement of a good rule btw) as the world of being dirty gang of thieves is tense and situations change fast. If one tactic doesn’t do the job you gotta try another.

    I mean sure you could house rule it away for your table and just encourage the same sort of thing as GM through the fiction, but then you are just doing the same thing as a GM that the rule does.

  29. I think the difference is the proscriptive nature of it. The game is built as a toolbox of rule sets to apply to different situations as needed, so the fiction drives when you reach for rules and what you pull out. To me this required switching is a glaring departure from that mindset.

    If you WANT to tackle the clock from different angles, you sure can! No argument from me. Where I get twitchy is that you MUST tackle the clock from different angles.

    I get that it doesn’t bother everyone that this requirement is in place. That’s cool. I just want to be clear on my perspective. =)

  30. I am not sure the game is “built as a toolbox” at all.  Honestly, a lot of your objections seem to be coming from a different headspace than the design of the game.

  31. The more I understand the rules of BitD the more I get the sense that it behaves like a boardgame more than other fiction first games like AW. It’s not quite as crunchy as say Torchbearer but it has a lot of elements where player strategy involves working with the rules to find their best advantage. This is especially true with crew advancements but also the boardgame style of play comes in with how the On Point and Clocks work.

    Less a toolbox to pull out as needed for a story you are telling and more an interlocking system of rules that when all working together help spin a story.

  33. If you look at page 18 of the second quickstart version (not the current one) you’ll see the inspiration I’m drawing from for how I see the game; the analogy there is a guitar that can be played different ways, rather than a toolbox, but I think the ideas are similar (chords/tools). That’s not in the current draft, I don’t think, and that may be intentional.

    I agree there is a very mechanical feel to the game at first. That has faded with my groups that have played, and I think it would fade faster if the rules didn’t change as fast. I think the mechanics are the focus until they’re familiar enough to fade into the background and the group runs with it. =)

  34. I also really don’t see it as a toolbox to help me tell my story; it’s more a toolbox to pull out what I need to provide mechanics for what the crew is doing. They want to do this. Okay, how do I model that challenge? Is it automatic success? A one-off roll? A clock? Do we need to set it up with a flashback? What do we need in the flashback? The players are driving the story, but there’s a question of how to mechanize the response to their plan.

    One key point that I think makes the game different than the boardgame (though I totally see where that vibe comes from) is that you don’t have to fill clocks if your tactics change. There is no pre-set adventure plan of what clocks you’ll encounter and fill. That whole system is totally responsive to player decisions and action.

    If they start on the locks, then decide to go on the surface instead of through the catacombs, all catacomb challenges are discarded and surface challenges are added. Conditions jump up or down based on shifting fictional context.

    On the other hand, you could also run heists as a totally mechanical exercise with minimal descriptive trappings. That’s another way to play the guitar, and a totally appropriate one when the crew is phoning it in and getting one job out of the way so they can go do another one. =)

  35. That’s pretty good analysis. 🙂

    That said, I don’t think it’s too difficult for the GM to naturally engineer a flow of events that matches the rules for trading off on point.

  36. I am normal describing a scene, and point at the first character who can react to the immanent obstacle. Than pointing at others (shifting spotlight) and ask the AW question style: What are you doing?

    Its less crunchy in my head than Spelling out the action chosen. Player either try to do something or support another character (Set up)

    When a decision is made I point at another player. And ask again and so on. Seriously, I dont have a real issue with the topic here, either ways. Its by the whims of the Director as I like to say 😀

  37. Ignoring and not finishing one strategy then shifting gears for another strategy is totally a boardgame thing: Race for the Galaxy, Agricola, etc.. That said the rest of what you mention in on point.

  38. Another point is that I’m interested in seeing how other people run the game. I’ve only played Blades in the Dark under another GM once. I would like to see more games advertised here so I could get in as a player. Then I could see these theories demonstrated firsthand. =)

Comments are closed.