Quick question: We have a munchkin in our current PBP game that is always trying to monkey with things to maximize number of dice, etc. He came up with this:
“We want to do X. So PCs A and B, you perform a Group Action. PC C, you Assist PC A for +1d, PC D, you Assist PC B for +1d.”
I can’t for the life of me imagine a fiction where A is coordinating B, but not C and D, to perform some Action.
Is this within the spirit of the rules, or is it, as I have labelled it, the height of weaseldom?
I think you are correct. I would not allow Assists on a Group Action. Either you are participating in a Group Action, or you’re not involved.
I mean, he’s not doing anything wrong if he coordinates everyone at the meta level. People strategizing and planning around the table is kinda a good thing.
Just ask the players to tell you about how their characters do stuff in the fiction and check if everyone agrees with what’s going on.
Also, there IS a way to “”””justify”””” this on the fiction: there is a Cult crew special ability called Bound in Darkness. Check that out.
I think that you can Assist on a group action, if you’re not exactly part of the group effort (just helping the Group as a whole) and ONLY if it makes fictional sense; anyway, since only one PC can Assist, I usually allow to Assist only the leader of the Group Action.
Page 17 “A character may assist a group action, but only if they aren’t taking part in it directly.”
This is mechanically fair as long as it makes sense within the fiction. The players assisting have to be able to explain how they’re assisting and if it’s getting to the point of being frustrating I would definitely make players C and D explain how they’re helping without the munchkin helping. Most people when playing Blades are gonna be honest about whether their stuff is legit unless they’re the aggressive lawyer about it.
Another thing to remember is assisting and teamwork actions include everyone in the consequences. C and D aren’t any safer from the consequences of bad rolls than A and B, it’s just spreading out stress evenly over the party instead of lumping it onto the leader.
Ultimately its about the fiction though. And understanding the results, group actions let everyone rolling succeed, assists let a player help another player succeed. If C and D are fine waiting outside and causing a distraction to assist while A and B sneak into the prison together that’s totally fine. Let the party split itself up and/or suffer consequences to both fronts AB scale the prison wall but dislodge a huge chunk of rock impairing their ability to sneak out the same way and the chunk of wall falls on CD inflicting harm.
Why can’t “the munchkin” explain what is happening in the fiction? I mean, as long as the other player and the whole table agrees on it, it should be okay, isn’t it?
You can always coordinate and plan via flashback, right? If the coordination seems unlikely, charge him stress for the flashback.
Duamn Figueroa I just mentioned it if the action was causing tension or frustration at “the table” for the players or the gm. I think that could very easily be a thing, players suggesting actions for and with each other is cool and collaborative and totally in the spirit of the game. One player moving everyone’s pieces for them to min/max isn’t. Some players may be more comfortable with suggestions that others and some players might not want to make “optimal” decisions. They might want to do something else and part of being the GM is making sure the players know they have that option. If they want to defer all the time then that’s the game they wanna play. But someone might not want to and may still not want to be confrontational about it and might need help. It’s an important thing to talk to and read the group and players individually and remember that the GM is a player who has to have fun too. If them min maxing on the orders of one player is frustrating for the GM it’s fair to talk to the players about it and say it would make the game more enjoyable for them if people tried to be more autonomous and see how the players feel.
My 5 cent: This is fiction-first. If it can be explained and suffering the consquences is understood and is fine. I’m with Chris McDonald and Duamn Figueroa here.
I don’t see this happen very often, though because of rule 1: you have to explain and it must fit the fiction.
Sure Chris McDonald, but is not up to the GM to fix social problems. If this hypotetical munchkin-creature is being overbearing, is up to all players to tell them to back him off.
Arne Jamtgaard, I wouln’t worry about it more than checking that the each player wants to follow through. If they not, then have a conversation with them to see what they want to do. But I wouldn’t worry about having players suggesting and helping eachother, that’s cool.
If the player is trying to coordinate things through their character in the fiction, then yes, ask them how they would be able to do that. If they can’t, then suggest a flashback. If they won’t, then tell them that they have to position themselves fictionaly to be able to teamwork. If they find themselves in that position often, suggest them to take the Bound in Darkness action. Also tell them to try and exploit those in-character planning to get “inner conflict” XP at the end of the session!
And dang, wouldn’t you know it, but closer reading shows me the “A character may assist a group action, but only if they aren’t taking part in it directly.” I humbly withdraw my question.
Arne Jamtgaard Just bear in mind the “1 assist per roll” rule and the “if it makes sense in the fiction” aspects. In this situation I don’t think 3 people attuning as a group action and one assisting, using only 1 mask with no Whispers makes any sense. It’d make more sense for one person to be attuning via the mask and a second person assisting by holding the ghost still with a spirit anchor.
~Weaver
Antimatter Gotcha. I think you’ve got a good handle on it.
You can follow the rules to the letter and still be a weasel.
Arne Jamtgaard You’re absolutely right. Ultimately, it does all come down to what’s happening in the fiction.
Yeah, the ultimate “cure” for this sort of behavior is “Okay, what are you doing?”
Though technically, in Blades, I think you’re supposed to ask that one FIRST.
I hate it when people exercise strong strategic thinking and maximize their chances of success when working as a group.
Rebecca W
It’s great when they do that as long as they are telling you what their characters are doing and not just picking options off a list of game rules is all. 🙂
All joking aside, I do understand your grievance, but i find that very often this kind of communication is simply the way this player thinks/expresses their intentions, coupled with a desire to make sure they’re giving themselves the best chance of success that won’t be lost in a less than expert narrative voice.
In an ideal world, my GM says, “Constance, what do you do?” and I say, “I grab the two guys near me in a scrum, and start ramming one guy into the wall while I swing his buddy in his third friend’s way, keeping him clear for Billy to take the shot on him from the roof,” and the GM translates that into me Skirmishing while Billy assists from outside the melee, and tells us what dice to roll and stress to spend, but that’s a case of a GM being sufficiently experienced to parse the system that way, two players comfortable and able to speak narratively, and a group with an established level of comfort with each other that a certain amount of mind reading and trust can happen.
As everyone else said, it’s a problem solved as simply as asking, “how do you do that?” but i tend to get a little sheepdog for people getting the munchkin brand because I often just see a logical or tactical thinker who doesn’t have the confidence or experience to express themselves in prose, and think there are probably fewer weasels and lawyers out there than we’ve been conditioned to believe.