Teamwork vs. The Bad Engagement Roll
Here’s a thing I just added to the text. It’s similar to something we used to do long ago in the early days of the alpha playtest, which I recently remembered. I think it still works given the current rules, but I’m interested to hear your thoughts.
(From the Engagement Roll section:)
TAKE ONE FOR THE TEAM
If the engagement roll goes badly, you might be able to use a teamwork maneuver (Protect) to deal with the problem by yourself while the rest of the crew avoids the trouble, depending on the situation at hand. For details, see page 42.
(From the Teamwork section:)
PROTECT
You step in to face a consequence that one of your teammates would otherwise face. You suffer it or roll to resist the consequence instead of them. Describe how you intervene.
You might also use the protect maneuver when an engagement roll goes badly. If the opposition turns the tables on the crew and ambushes you when you infiltrate the manor, your character can protect the team and deal with the bad outcome by yourself while the rest of the crew avoids that trouble.
————
I wonder if this takes the bite out of a bad engagement roll or not. It makes them less painful for the crew in general, but much worse for one individual (which might not be a bad thing). But I’m not 100% sure.
it does take some bite out of the engagement roll, but not all of it. The difference in result would probably be that the crew lets that willing-someone be the fall guy, or they will end up having to deal with it soon anyways to pull him/her out of the fire.
I think it is worth mentioning as a possibility for the Protect maneuver if that is your intention.
I think it’s a good option to have, and illustrates using teamwork outside your usual “action” actions. It’s not going to work every time because fictional positioning might make that impossible, and that’s fine too.
Love it. In earlier rules that did something similar to this, we ended up with some very interesting in medias res score setups (which I think is a common trope) where we got to retroactively discover what plan led to one PC trapped in a casket along with the target body they meant to fetch, while they were about to get dumped in the sea. Was it part of the intended plan, or did something go awry off-screen?
I think it was a great way to start, especially at lower tiers when the crew should really feel like things are sort of stacked against them.
At first glance, it seems like a good idea, if only because it makes it less obnoxious to throw “personal” complications onto an engagement roll without sidetracking the whole group.
So if, for example, a bad engagement roll results in one PCs arch rival getting involved and the rest of the PCs would rather get on with their plan, that PC can then head off to deal with the rival situation while the rest of the group continues with the job.
Of course, if everyone’s into the rival faceoff, they can stick around and help, but it’s nice to have that extra option.
The other benefit of these more isolated challenges is that it throws a wrench into a finely balanced crew. Suddenly your vault heist loses it’s key safecracker, or your deception plan loses it’s key grifter while they are wrapped up in some other complication. That way, the group has the fun challenge of working across specialties, which is always fun, especially for established crews.
It also gives opportunities for a player without a clear role in the plan to step up and take something on.
For example, if your straightforwards Cutter is tagging along on a burglary stressing everyone out with Prowl teamwork, it could be a cool opportunity for them to step up and say “You guys go be sneaky while I beat up this problem.”
I feel like it doesn’t take the bite out of the situation, just makes it a bit more flexible in how you handle it. (And, theoretically, that option was always on the table right? There just wasn’t an explicit rule for it? I mean, it’s not like the GM should stop them if one PC steps up to handle a complication while everyone else continues with the mission, right? This just calls out that option in an obvious way.)
Yeah, Dylan, this isn’t a new rule really — just a callout for something that you might do anyway.
To be clear: the rest of the team goes from facing an engagement result of 1-3 to basically facing a result of 4-5, right? This wouldn’t be used to bump an engagement roll all the way up to 6+?
The rest of the team has to work around the problem that you’re facing alone, but how much that matters for them will be situational. This technique doesn’t specifically change the engagement roll outcome to a better result, so I wouldn’t describe it that way.
I dig it. I don’t think it diminishes the impact of a bad engagement roll much at all, because the consequences for one character”taking it on the chin” are likely to be worse than if the crew faced it as a team.
I think it goes great.
– “There are some bluecoats around the mansion?”
– “Yes”
– “My Slide goes and talks to them to protect the team, asks for a cigarette or something.”
– “The consequence is that they get suspicious right away, might take you for interrogation.”
– “Hell no they don’t”
– “Ok, resist with… Resolve?”