Engagement Roll v8

Engagement Roll v8

Engagement Roll v8

I’m doing my final passes on a lot of stuff right now, in preparation for my hand-off to Evil Hat. As I was tightening the edit on the engagement roll, this even more streamlined version suddenly hit me. I think it’s pretty darn good. What do you think?

(Edit: Here’s the next spread, too, which may help clear up some extra details: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Y3ZE1Ar-fDRko2RkFhZmdkRm8/view?usp=sharing)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Y3ZE1Ar-fDeGQ4VHBsWUNBSG8/view?usp=sharing

81 thoughts on “Engagement Roll v8”

  6. It’s very clean and simple and easy for players to follow. I’m assuming that a GM can take the opposing faction’s tier into account by using advantages/disadvantages e.g. Tier 1 crew tries to jimmy a window of a tier 3 gang and so has -1d6 as the window has better locks than the tools that the crew is using.

    I will have to think through some examples and see how they pan out. The raid on captain Strangford by the Bloodletters might be an interesting example as it worked out at 3d6 under the old system.

  8. wow, quite different. It feels a bit weird at first to base the rolls on the crew Tier instead of the target Tier, but the explicit change to the mechanical “this determines position” makes sense. Still though, a Tier IV crew targeting another Tier IV crew getting 4d seems really good. I guess that’s just the perk of that tier though!

  11. Solid. Gotta say I wasn’t sold on using Engagement Rolls as a GM before but this shift in the rules is much better and makes me change my mind. It’s cleaner with less ambiguity. The old v7 version didn’t seem to add anything that I couldn’t add myself just using my GM hat imagine what would happen. The roll just let to outcomes with general ideas which as a GM I pretty much already had in mind — it’s pretty straight forward to know when a player’s plan is terrible. But targeting it to just the position they start out with makes a lot more sense and is more tangible result for the players.

  13. I love that tier is the basis for the engagement roll, and the details shift that up or down.

    I don’t like the setting of action position through the outcome of the engagement roll. When combined with the notes about how to work backwards from the result to the outcome, this reads to me like it seeks to replace the usual process of setting position by desired goal and approach normally handled by “the conversation.” Also, appears to be eliminating or skipping the discussion which normally precedes the action roll and consequences they are knowingly risking, rather than complementing it. Seems that is the intent, but I might also be taking it a step too far in my head

  14. Its worth noting that I am also seeking a better precedent for how far into the Thing they get with this engagement roll. If it’s to the Thing, then the crit skips the score, so it’s not that. It’s also not the approach. Perhaps the next page clears this up, but reading this in context actually left me confused as to where to go from the engagement roll. I thought it was the first interesting thing; now it seems it might be intended we go to the most interesting thing, even if it seems like it skips things.

    Also, what of linked plan outcomes?

  15. Mark Cleveland Massengale Yes, this mechanic sets position differently than you usually do. Very emphatically so. That’s kind of the whole point of this mechanic. It’s designed to skip over that part and establish the situation fresh, without lots of fiddling by anyone.

    Once this is done, then you’re back into the fiction-first, moment-to-moment play. An engagement roll that has to be built out of the conversation is just planning as usual — which defeats the point.

  16. Feels much harsher than previous versions, which is okay.

    I am confused about the position thing though. I think I need some serious examples here. Previously, the engagement roll determined circumstances, and those circumstances determined position based on how the PCs reacted. It feels very strange to say that regardless of what the PCs do from their starting position, that it will automatically be a desperate/whatever action. I can’t see how that fits together.

  17. I really like the dramatic drive of the engagement mechanic – it overtly pushes the fiction into action, yet leaves the possibility for individual players to indulge in a narrative ‘building’ scene (at a cost of stress) via the (very cool) flashback mechanic.

    I like the direction you are taking the game John Harper, its becoming rather exciting, it reminds me so much of when I first read Burning Wheel, or Apocalypse World. Something exciting is happening with this ruleset, and as emergent play properties are becoming evident in the long-running playtesters games; Blades is a scoundrel game well worth being proud of mate. Well Done!

  19. Mike Pureka I think that those “positions” are like the consequence of an action roll: they set the circumstances in a way that is “controlled/risky/desperate”, but instead of following the single action, they follow the approach you have chosen to start the plan.

    Basically, they are not “fixed” positions for any action you choose to react to what is happening.

    But…I could be wrong.

  20. I don’t have a problem with the engagement roll setting an opening position and working backward to fit the fiction into that. I think I’m leery about rolling the crew’s tier unless it’s by your design that experienced crews are far, far less likely to start off desperate. A benefit of the existing system is that even big crews that take a stupid plan against a superior foe roll about as many dice as a tier zero crew doing the same thing.

    That said, what you have now is much easier to understand overall and doesn’t have the feel of a subsystem like the v7 and previous rules did.

  21. John Harper I am curious why the target’s “tier” is not a factor for the fortune roll itself?

    For example the crew tier < target tier (-1d), crew tier = target tier (+0d), crew tier > target tier (+1D).

    In this way it shows that higher tier targets are already more difficult to handle. And conversely a crew picking on a lower tier target has earned (presumably) an advantage over lesser criminals/organizations.

  22. John Harper thanks, clears up how much of that is as intended (all of it). Also, what I am seeing is that this [the outcome] is a point at which the GM takes the detail and plan type, and forms a “best approach” scenario that has gone one way or the other when we cut to the action. Which is cool!

    The extra examples are quite helpful as well.

    However, I think what Mike Pureka is part of what I am leery about as well. Perhaps its the use of the nomenclature of desperate/risky/controlled which throws me off, since those are typically figured based on a desired effect; i.e. do we set the effect of the initial actions such that success moves them into position to actually do The Thing? For example: they get 4-5 and then want it to be Desperate or Controlled instead, what do we rule as the baseline effect for Risky so we can figure out the extra (or lost) effect?

  23. Sorry, I’m not a fan of this version and much prefer the previous version.

    It seems off that Tier 0 and Tier 1 gangs should be very often pitched into Desperate situations. I prefer the old system, where the engagement roll is based on the preparedness of the target, modified by a difference in tier.

    I like the clearer description of the modifiers to the engagement roll. Those are just pure good.

    The examples are good and really highlight how the engagement rolls feeds into the fiction. The example of the rooftop, where you’ve framed past the “find the weakest point” is excellent. However, the description of the rooftop breakin doesn’t seem to fit with what I’d call “desperate”: I open the action the alarm going off (or on the verge of going off) rather than the PCs noticing the warded window, especially when compared to the active fight against armed and ready defenders that’s the “risky” example.

    Another thematic thing could be to switch the examples around. A controlled rooftop break-in, and a desperate start to the conversation?

  24. Good point Mark Cleveland Massengale . I guess the needed clarification is that the starting position is the position for standart effect – if the engagement went poorly then going for better position give you limited effect, and good engagement give you the chance to take greater risk for great effect.

  25. This would solve one of few issues my players have with the system. They don’t like how a lot of the job is decided by the engagement roll, as they can’t do much to impact it and are left mitigating it afterwards.

  26. Roe Portal I get that, but I was actually asking for a clarification of another kind. Specifically, what is “standard effect” supposed to achieve in that situation? Presumably they can change their actions as the narration happens to make things less or more risky (or.. maybe they cant? at which point, the thought arises that if we are told to determine the action and position for them, we are also supposed to inflict consequences :shrug:). There is already always a desperate approach available, regardless of this roll in other words. However, there isn’t always a particular amount of effect to be had (and maybe that should be what the engagement affects, the maximum effect at Desperate, and tell us which Thing in the score it should tackle).

    Perhaps it’s just side effects of being here since previous versions, but I think better examples (or one or two weird case examples) would go a long way

    The real answer I probably want is to: which Thing in the progression of the plan should we be bumping up against with the engagement outcome? Like since this obstacle wouldn’t be a problem if not for this roll scoring less than a crit, I wonder if a crit doesn’t skip us forward “to step #2 after approach”, or “past step # [whatever is the Thing, minus 1]” (which would probably also answer my question)

  27. Mark Cleveland Massengale I think it makes perfect sense. Take the locked rooftop example. If they roll a 1-3 desperate position, that ward is there and the lock is harder to pick than expected. They can either pick as normal in a desperate position, with standard effect (i.e. unlock the door quickly) or go for risky with limited effect (I.e. be more careful but unlock the door more slowly). If they roll a 1-3 on desperate, I’d set that ward off immediately, on a 4-5 I’d fill in 2 boxes on the ward and the door unlock, on a 6, they unlock it no problem. If they opted for risky, a 1-3 would be 2 boxes on the ward, 4-5 would be 1 ward segments, 1 lock segments, a 6 would be 2 lock segments.

    As you can see, the initial positioning makes the start harder or easier depending on what you rolled. No matter what the players that rolled a desperate engagement do, they’re gonna be at risk or slower, meaning more chance to fail.

  29. Mark Cleveland Massengale There isn’t always a desperate roll. If the players ask “how can I make this desperate?” You can simply say, “you can’t in this situation, there is no oppertunity to make the situation desperate”.

    Just because they can search to make a desperate roll, doesn’t mean there should always be an option to roll one.

  30. John Harper I do have one question about the second page and linked plans. In the example of stealing an artifact, the set up score yields heat, rep etc. Is this the case for all set ups? Or only the more elaborate ones?

  31. Sure there is – lets say you have a tied up prisoner to interrogate. commanding him to tell you stuff is probably controlled, but giving him a sword and challenging him to try to kill you while you are unarmed on the condition that if you beat him he tell you stuff is probably desperate. Why would someone do it? I don’t know, maybe being a fair but violent is your gang shtick, maybe you’re insane, maybe you want the Xp, Either way, the option is there. Mark is right.

  32. I think the flaw in the logic is assuming that voluntarily moving from Risky to Desperate must offer some commensurate benefit. Sometimes more risk means more reward. Sometimes, it’s just stupid.

  33. Phil Hartwich its worth noting then: “in general a player can try to push for a greater effect by accepting a worse position, and vice versa”. I mean, this means that the dumber approach would likely fall outside “in general”, but also that vying for greater rewards is a way for the player to get closer to desperate (And it works the other way around too as long as its not ‘just stupid’)

  37. I like this system, especially as starting crews are bound to make more bad choice leading to worse starting situations. Still, like John Potter wrote, it would be good if the tier of the target would also affect the engagement roll.

    By the way John Harper, in the last example (of the three) it was said that the crew was Tier III and no modifiers. Shouldn’t they be rolling 3d6, not 4d6?

  40. I kind of wish there were some examples or extra information on how contacts can affect the engagement roll. Does this just mean you’ve used them in downtime to investigate and get extra information or could it be that someone’s rival has double crossed them and actually shows up in the mission because of other clocks and complications. How far or close are contacts playing to the actual mission vs prep to the mission. Like is Arcy acquiring the ghost Pact lawyer for Strangford an extra die here or still just extra positioning in the fiction?

  41. “Since the players can use flashbacks, jumping right into the action is like a sneak preview for them—once they see the situation they’re in, their “planning” in flashbacks will be focused and useful, rather than merely speculations on circumstances and events that might not even happen.”

    I really like this part. A lot.

    I like that it “breaks” the usual rule. It truly cuts to the action and keeps everyone away from a debate. I dig it.

    Also, am I correct that the third example granted 4d to a Tier 3 crew because of their contact (+1d)?

  42. From a player’s point of view forcing me to have to accumulate strain to accomplish flash backs because the engagement roll pushed the players past what would have been an obvious decision point seem to be to their disadvantage.

    That is unless as a GM it is encouraged to make the engagement roll include the player choice or began at the decision point.

    Or am I missing something obvious? (totally possible)

  43. I could be (probably am?) wrong but I see the engagement roll as all the little bits of player planning that normally happen in a game such as, say, Shadowrun, condensed into one roll. It alleviates all the wasted time of “What if?”, letting you get to what matters. When I GM and see players consistently sweating the possibility of things I know aren’t there, it can be frustrating, so I dig this approach.

    Can it go poorly? Yes, absolutely. However if you stack the deck (contacts, etc.) you have a player-driven advantage. When it goes badly, it hasn’t taken away player agency (again, you probably had a chance to gain bonuses) it just makes thing interesting. A flashback is optional and while costing stress, does give a player a powerful tool to control things. It gives them a chance to shine and makes it fresh for the whole table.

    If this was a traditional “Shadowrun” you’d have a lot of time spent planning and when it still goes wrong, have nothing to fall back on, losing that sweet flashback that encourages player creativity and showcases character badassery.

    My admittedly inexperienced two cents.

    To add: Another way you can represent good player planning is not assigning a high stress cost to a flashback. The more outlandish and unlikely, the higher the cost. So if a player makes a good case for “I would’ve done…” don’t make them pay a lot of stress.

  46. Neil Smith This system can yield a similar number of engagement dice as the old one, if you want to run it that way. Even a Tier 0 crew can roll 3d when things are good. 0d +2d dice for target vulnerability, and then another +1d from a contact or the GM’s discretion (note that the GM can add/subtract engagement dice according to any criteria they like).

    The rooftop action is desperate, which means that on a 1-3 or 4/5, the PCs suffer a serious complication (at least 3 ticks on the alarm clock) plus possibly level-3 harm from the ward on top of that. The engagement roll doesn’t resolve the desperate position for the PCs — it puts them in a spot where they’re in action making the roll and then we see how it goes.

  47. For everyone who wants a difference in Tier to matter, note the final clause here:

    You can modify the dice pool if any major advantages or disadvantages apply. Consider these elements for modifiers, and include your own as you see fit:

    Maybe I’ll call out a Tier difference as an example optional modifier.

  48. Mark Cleveland Massengale I’m not understanding what you’re referring to when you talk about “the Thing.”

    The engagement roll places the PCs in conflict with the first obstacle. A critical result moves them past that, to a second obstacle.

    “How far into the score?” has two states, then. Either the first or second obstacle.

    Does that answer your question?

  49. John, am I correct in my understanding that the engagement roll merely sets up the initial position for the detail of entry into the score? After that’s resolved it’s business as usual, based on results.

  51. I really like this a lot. It’s much more clean-cut and allows for more control by the PCs — old engagement rolls didn’t really feel like they could be affected much, it was just ‘whatever the GM decides’. Now, it’s clearly stated that they can have friends or allies help(but rivals might interfere, too!), or take advantage of weaknesses via plan type/detail(this was integrated before, but this version is much more clearly worded), etc.

    I also personally like that the engagement roll’s primary effect is to set the initial position of the crew. That’s much cleaner than establishing different fictional situations, and feels like it matters more.

    I plan to start using this in my game right away!

  52. Antimatter , I’m not John (obviously) but I think I may actually know this! Wards do what you need/want them to do. Warn, harm, trap…uh, oh, it’s magic!

  55. I’m a big fan except for the tiered starting point. A crew of 0 attacking a tier 0 target seems to be way less capable or competent than a 3 attacking a 3 (who have comparatively/relatively the same skills/defenses against them). I know that you need something for a starting pool, but a number (like 2 or 1) might be weird since everything else goes off of some sort of quality – but I think it’s a much more stable and comprehensible pool.

    You start at 2 (standard) and adjust up or down based on circumstances.

  56. Perhaps a Tier 0 crew rolls 2 dice and keeps the lowest? That could reflect all the intangibles a starting crew hasn’t thought of or experienced. Even one additional die turns it to a normal roll and from that point on you roll your Tier, plus any modifiers. It’s a pinch to be sure, but it gives your Tier more “oomph”. Not sure if that’s needed, but it seems cool in theory.

  59. Thanks John Harper  Your reply to me and Neil covered it. I get now that the action is in fact underway, the GM is just also picking their approach too which led to this situation, and the effect they get for that approach is just to get past that first obstacle (or second in the case of a crit). Which makes so much more sense now, and I love all of this.

    I look forward to incorporating the new changes; as others have mentioned, they are surprisingly robust (albeit, with low tier crews getting hosed a lot: to which I say “c’est la vie!”)

  62. Oh, snaps! Glad I mentioned it. That slipped right past me. Damn derps. Part of the reason we’ve been waiting to dive in and play, besides our other game, has been not having to relearn things. As always, everyone’s expert info is much appreciated!

  63. Stras Acimovic​ I don’t see the problem. With this version, when you’re low tier with no advantages, you will probably have a desperate start. That’s the worst thing that can happen from this roll, no matter how outclassed you are. Seems pretty forgiving to me.

    As you Tier up, you have fewer desperate opening moments. Also seems about right, yeah?

  64. John Harper I will ask you the same thing you often ask others on Engagements. At Tier 0 what else could you have done to have a better opening roll?

    Engagements are fortune rolls. Luck based. They represent factors like someone coming out of a bathroom, or you picking the day a second faction is present at your target’s. II’m not sure why you get luckier as you go up in Tier.

    Ultimately Blades is about scrappy little folks punching up right? You have incentives to fight harder Tiers, and take on more than they can chew.

    The complications, and the weapons in their opponents arsenals change, but I don’t think that tier 4s just seldom start in a desparate moment, just that they have more resources (as char skills, and money to sink into downtime/prep) to bring to bear once they’re there.

    If you’re Tier 0 and taking on another Tier 0 faction – you both know about as much and are about as prepped as Tier 3’s taking on Tier 3’s. They may not have the numbers or the tricks, but the luck factor should be about the same. I’m not sure why by default Tier 3’s have to spend less on prep in order to get the same luck and result.

    Maybe that’s a thing you want to say. Which is ok – but it doesn’t really scan for me.

    Like I said – I super dig everything else about this! But your previous kind of hard set counts of preset diffs worked. I might just go with a preset two in my games and add one more factor (tier higher or tier lower) to the mix – and see how it plays ^_^

  69. It occurs to me that if base dice are fixed by tier, any modifiers for target tier should be as well. If you make +2 for a tier I target, +1 for tier II, -1 for tier IV and -2 for tier V, I see two main benefits. First, equal tier always starts you at three dice. Second, low tiers (especially zero) don’t have to worry that any good prep or planning is going to automatically cancelled out by a ‘vs higher tier’ penalty; this will only be the case if they choose to try punching far above their weight.

    If you think 2d is a better baseline, adjust the modifers appropriately.

  70. I like this new system a lot! The modifiers are a lot simpler and more clear than the previous system.

    That said, while I completely agree that Tier 0 crews should often be rolling into desperate situations I would say that’s because they’re always going against bigger targets. As crews get bigger their lives should get easier, but not if they start going up against the empire itself!

    With that in mind I would suggest that the starting # of dice is determined by the difference in tier between the two.

  71. Stras Acimovic

    I get where you’re coming from, but I don’t necessarily agree. Let me see if I can articulate how I’m looking at it…

    For starters, I don’t think engagements should be fortune rolls because I don’t like them being luck based. If your crew happened to pick the same day to run their score another faction did to assault the target, I’d rather have that happen because of previous stimuli in the fiction(fallout from a previous score or entanglement, NPC project clock, PC project clock to set them against each other, etc) as opposed to just a random roll that decrees the situation is screwed up for your guys. Also, I don’t see why you couldn’t still include situations like the other faction assaulting or the guy coming out of the bathroom in this proposed new system; I’d use those as the circumstances that make starting positions risky or desperate.

    As for the higher tier crews being ‘luckier’ all the time by rolling more dice for engagement, I don’t see this as luck but experience. All the pre-planning you had to do as a low tier crew(making sure to hit them where they’re weak, getting help from a friend, etc) is so hard-coded into your scoundrels by the time you hit tier 2 that they’re just doing it anyways, and have discovered newer, more effective ways to drive those points home(allowing them ways to still get bonus dice). Your characters are experienced enough that when someone comes out of the bathroom at the wrong time, they had it happen to them before and they were ready for it, so their position is risky instead of desperate. Another faction is attacking? Your crew has learned how to take advantage of that instead of getting swept up in the chaos, and the situation is controlled instead of risky or worse. I don’t see it as them being luckier, just another way to show how much more badass the scoundrels have gotten from experience(or being surrounded by experienced folks, for new characters coming in… or maybe the triple one on the engagement roll was the new guy’s fault!! :P).

    I’m somewhat of two minds regarding whether difference in tier should affect the engagement roll. On the one hand, a higher tier faction should be used to being targeted(in the same way as your crew has become used to engaging targets, as above) and should innately have better defenses, so it makes sense. Two points, though: one, the game is about the PCs, not the NPC factions. And two, if the PC crew is taking on a higher-tier target, they’re going to be losing effect from quality difference often — isn’t that enough?

    In the end, Blades is a flexible enough system that we can all kind of look at this and tweak it to work how we(and our players) like it best, which is part of the beauty of it. I do hope that my rambling explanation for why I like John’s new idea better made some sense, though. 🙂

  72. I really like what Stras Acimovic said: a fortune based roll (modified by circumstances, Tier included) seems to convey the idea of the engagement better.

    Also, if higher Tier crews rarely find themselves in desperate positions even against high Tier targets, it makes their scores a little less exciting

  73. MisterTia86

    The position from the engagement in this rule is only for the first roll. It’s not like it determines the positioning for the whole score. I’m not sure reducing the percentage of desperate rolls for the very first roll really changes the dynamic of high tier crews that much.

  75. High tier crews also tend to have more dice to roll for actions, which means they don’t consider devil’s bargains as often, and when they do roll they can often reliably resist consequences. It smooths out the entire score to where you’re playing Leverage, not Fiasco.

  77. Take this advice with a grain of salt, but this line:

    … so we don’t need to play out tentative probing maneuvers, special precautions, or other ponderous non-action that can plague the outset of many gaming adventures.

    The “that can plague…” part of the sentence might potentially read as snark towards other RPGs, rather than clarification about what the players want to avoid.

    I’d suggest rewriting that sentence, or just ending it at “or other ponderous non-action.” – I think the intent is clearer without that potential misunderstanding.

    I know at least two players in my group would respond badly to this, and say “but I like planning. Who is this writer, to judge me for the way I play?” – while they’d be fine with the sentence about “so we don’t need to plan this” without the negative implication.

  78. I’ve actually noticed a number of comments from John where it seems to be taken as a given that no reasonable person enjoys planning. I’ve also noticed that there’s still plenty of opportunities for planning in Blades, but you’re much better off planning what you want to do and why you’re going to do it, rather than the fine details of how. I agree that less judgemenatal language would avoid unnecessarily alienating some potential players.

  80. The mechanics are very elegant, I had to think a few times about why the target faction’s tier isn’t factored in but I’m okay with that being addressed when setting effect on actions.

    As outcomes go, personally I liked the suggestions that 7.x provided based on the rolls (opposition turning the table, tougher than it looks, etc) but there was nothing there, that couldn’t be created by asking the question “what is the obvious way the target might react that puts the scoundrels in the rolled position?”

Comments are closed.