As I was doing yet another read through of 3f, I noticed a concept I could borrow from Torchbearer for Engagement rolls:
Before the players decide which of the 6 plans they are using, assign a base vulnerability to each plan. Torchbearer does something similar with monster design with regard to conflicts. The “hit points” of the monster are dependent on which conflict you enter, but the GM has pre-determined the distribution to keep it fair with regards to player autonomy.
So you might set Assault at 4d for a market vendor’s stall, whereas the armory might have a vulnerability of 0d for Assault. Approach the armory with an Occult plan and you might have 3d for Engagement.
Go one further: each possible job you lay out gets this treatment. As the crew does other jobs around town, the vulnerabilities get adjusted due to reputation/heat. The armory used to be ill-prepared against an Occult assault until the last couple of jobs where the Whisper was less than subtle… Now the armory has asked the Dimmer Sisters for help. Occult is now 1d. Oh you’ve worked with the Dimmer Sisters before? Now it’s 0d because they know how you work.
Nice twist on the engagement roll. Personally I as GM just skip this roll. Usually I can just sort it out from the fiction how hard it’s gonna be. But the way you handle it totally makes sense as it comes from the fiction and helps even if you ignore the roll.
Yeah, this is cool. Also, FYI, I’m re-writing the explanation for the outcomes of the engagement roll. They’re a little dull right now. I think the Regiment and Ghost Lines (from which this roll comes) have better versions, so I’m revising a bit.
It seems that a significant number of our jobs are improvised on the spot by our GM. Having different stats for different possible approaches seems a bit clunky for improvising, especially when most of those stats will never be used. It’s a great idea though, I could definitely see, “Yeah, that sounds like a good approach, take an additional die on your engagement roll,” or, of course, the oppostie.
I would use it so that I’m setting the vulnerability independently of which plan the players choose. It’s too easy to react to the players – even subconsciously – and “adjust” the opposition accordingly. I like this method because it seems more fair, and also gives Gather Information another solid use.
And improvising jobs as opposed to laying out which jobs are available? They still need to decide the vulnerability unless they are skipping the engagement part of play right? Or am I the only one that loves that part of the game?