Would someone mind clarifying to me when you talk about the engagement roll? When is it set and discussed?
Would someone mind clarifying to me when you talk about the engagement roll? When is it set and discussed?
Would someone mind clarifying to me when you talk about the engagement roll? When is it set and discussed?
The engagement roll is the safety valve for the GM to say, “Okay that’s a good amount of planning, let’s jump right into the action” (whatever your comfort level happens to be on that).
Right after they pick the style and detail of the heist, toss that die and think about how to adjust their start.
So here’s a follow up question. Can you resist the consequences of an engagement roll?
I think it’s less resisting the consequences and more choosing how to act to work against them. I think a poor engagement roll results in unexpected complications rather than instant injuries so I’d be tempted to say the players just have to work out how to proceed.
As a caveat, my only experience with the game so far is reading the rule book and listening to the Friends at the Table actual play podcast, so perhaps someone with actual gameplay experience might have a different take.
Andrew Shields Do you think you should talk to the players about how resilient a plan could be? Is there meant to be discussion?
Timothy Stanbrough Yes, discussion is important. When I’m introducing Blades in the Dark to a new group, I explain that choosing a type of plan and an opening detail are to help the group transition from talking about the heist to getting into it; as soon as there’s enough of a plan, get started.
Since it’s just the starting point, it’s fine (and expected) for the plan to morph. A stealth plan can become an assault, infiltration can turn into a social deception as clever flashbacks roll in, and that’s all fine.
Is that what you meant?
A engagement roll maneuver I’ve been seeing myself and others do is negotiate the engagement roll. (like ok were at 2D for this….factors X, Y, and Z. Unless…) and then folks often wanna spend resources gathering more info via flashbacks, or something else to gain a trait to improve their engagement.
Why
There’s seems to be a disconnect between the idea of limiting planning and the engagement roll. The planning rules say, choose a plan and pick supply the detail and off you go. But the engagement roll then steps in and says, your plan sucks! There’s greater opposition then you realised! Gotcha players!
Andrew Shields The plan morphing and changing after it starts is a good insight, thinking back on my last session I think that happened during the heist, it changed from an assault plan to a social one. But it’s not quite what I meant.
It’s the problem that the engagement roll seems like an important factor to consider when planning your heists. But if you start to go into detail you run into the kind of unproductive planning that I thought the game wanted to do away with. Pixel bitching about potential problems before they’re actually an issue.
As I’m writing this I also think I’m beginning to understand the process more completely.
So to wit; The plan is picked, the detail supplied. You tell them the engagement roll. Then using your method Eric Vulgaris, you negotiate the roll and allow players to gather info ect ect. (But not allowing a change of plans at this point?) Then start the heist but accepting that it could change during the event itself.
So to rephrase my original question. If a player were to turn to me before the plan was even picked and ask “How resilient are the bluecoats to an assault on this watchtower.” How do you handle that?
Thanks for the help so far everyone 🙂
Let me reiterate. Treat entanglements almost like a resistance roll. GM starts the discussion and negotiate backwards.
OK crew. Based your targets tier and prep you’re at 1 die for this engagement roll..
“hold on Eric. I’m gonna scope out the joint the night before. If I succeed can I get a die for preparations and counter preparation?”
“Sure. Flashback 1 stress and we cut to… ” blah blah
OK we’re at 2D. We ready?
To answer your question, tell them “you’re as sure as you’re gonna be unless you tell me how you’re ensuring you’re right. Otherwise roll the dice.”
The dice ultimately tell us how lucky/skilled this heist is from the get-go
“The map is not the territory.” I feel the purpose of the engagement roll is to give the heist an opportunity to resist the characters’ planning.
Unexpected things happen. I use variables like weather, traffic, sick days, and internal punishments to shift the landscape. What you thought would be easy is harder.
That pushes the players into conjuring up flashbacks to show good prep that their characters have done even earlier. Get the characters stuck in, and get the players thinking on their feet, out of the box, as quickly as possible.
Here are some sample engagements I’ve used.
* You were going to break in through the sewer, going through the wall into the basement. But it’s pouring rain outside and draining into the tunnel; gotta work fast.
* The son of the leader misbehaved, so he and his friends have to stay sober and guard the warehouse instead of going to the game with everyone else; they’re sulking in the target structure and you’ll have to work around them.
* There is a traffic jam outside the temple, so it takes a long time to get in and getting out won’t be as simple as you thought, and that’s more time for your disguises to be compromised.
These are things that happen too late in the planning to be worked around, but fast-thinking players can still apply flashbacks to bypass them, compensate, or even turn a bad situation to their advantage somehow.
As for planning ahead of time, my normal practice (not supported by the rules) is to give each player one thing they want to know about ahead of time. (I skip this step if they have to act with less than a day or two notice.)
I either give them the information or sometimes require a roll to see how getting something sensitive or difficult goes.
I usually take this opportunity to lavish opportunities on them; why yes, there is a social event coming right up. You find out the chambermaid hates the lord and the butler. Turns out the whole top floor is quarantined with fever. Give them lots of possibilities for their initial approach and detail, many to choose from.
If someone said “How solid are bluecoat defenses on the watchtower?” I’d probably ask how they are finding out, and call for a roll if need be (often leveraging an ally) or just share that there are about 30 active at any time, half inside and half outside, with a number of veteran guards–but the guy in charge is known to have gambling problems and a debt to one of the crew’s rival factions.
Maybe they do something with that, maybe not. But it’s an in, something to work with.
And if I set that up ahead of time, and the engagement roll indicates a problem, maybe as the crew gets ready to go in a large contingent of their rivals shows up and is escorted in to talk to the leader of the bluecoats on site during the narrow window when the characters have to act! =)
Exactly what you’re saying Andrew! The crux of the question “are we prepared enough to handle the job?” IS THE QUESTION MISSION PLAY ANSWERS
Yeah, when I’m pitching Blades in the Dark, I tell people that the characters do the planning and prep so the players don’t have to. =)
Awesome replies, thank you 🙂
I see the error in my ways now and will be sure to correct them.
This is a tricky part of the game, and the quick start doesn’t have examples to show the flow. I’ll share my draft of the Engagment section from the book as soon as its ready so we can see if it’s answering this question well.
Timothy Stanbrough On the plus side, there isn’t really a wrong way to play Blades. There are just some ways that make things more fun. If a rule or something you’re doing makes things less fun for the group, do something else.
Glad that it sounds like you’ve picked up a few things from this thread. I know I have.