In all three games of BitD I’ve played (or actual 2 games of BitD and 1 of S&V) I’ve encountered the same issue – a player who’s XP criteria seemed entirely out of whack with the character..
“Mark XP when you address a difficult decision with X or Y”, but the character skills, abilities and the entire way the character is being played don’t match with the criteria. So for example, the leech who tends to approach everything through stealth and deception, who has a high ranks in Sway and Prowl, and has taken a few veteran abilities to support their play style.
I know there’s a section on changing playbooks – and I guess people could re-image their characters using a different playbook, so the player above could re-write their Leech as a Lurk or a Slide, but this seems overkill when the only issue is this one line.
However having spotted the issue I’m beginning to question the very nature of the line itself. Everything else in the game is pretty much player defined and the players are the final arbiters in what is right. Why is this one line pre-assigned for them? Has anyone experimented with swapping it out for a line along the lines of “Mark XP when you highlight your character’s modus operandi, through words, deeds or action”?
There’s no problem with changing the playbook XP trigger. Items and the trigger are really the only things that define a playbook, so changing the XP trigger is almost the same thing as changing playbook anyway. Let them take another playbook’s trigger, or mix and match.
I think there’s some value in not having it completely free-form in the sense that it pushes you towards playing to type, the only thing enforcing niche protection in the whole system. If you get rid of that, there’s really very little difference between the playbooks anymore.
In street jargong: A Cutter/Leech/Lurk/Slide/Whisperer is defined by WHAT they do (often), not what they know or even HOW* they do it.
A Leech may sneak into every challenge, but distungish him-/herself from a lurk she/he should use chemicals/contraptions/powersources to aid the sneaking about.
Examples: In a B&E the lurk with use stealth, atleticism and evasion primarily by their body and skill, but a leech might help the same actions by concotions to make the guard dogs sleepy, having subtle electicity power surges masking the noises of footsteps or a hanglider for that silent get away.
A cutter might not want to slice up everyone, but in BitD one are expected to play to type, BUT make the CHARACTER and the CHARACTER’s ACTIONS interesting!
Don’t be afraid to instruct a XP-hungry player to play more to type expectations, and ask loaded questions: “What is your favorite tool?”, “What do you always carry on you to fascillitate rapid escaptes?”, “what would you really, really like to blow up and see go down in flames?”
*) The stats rolled are called Actions, not Skills, and there is a subtle difference that sometimes is golden.
Michael Esperum But that’s an issue. If “in BitD one is expected to play to type” then we are saying that are only 6 roles you can play. If someone has a really solid idea for an interesting character that doesn’t fit one of these pigeonholes we’ll penalise them.
I think you’re pigeon-holing the rules, and not realizing that playing against type has it’s own rewards.
That said, if the example is real (three sessions isn’t really that much to go on), I’d take an XP-Trigger and switch it with one from the lurk and make the word on the street that he’s a really lurky leech 😉 … I’d also ley him trade in for a couple of Sneaky Friends.
—I’d reiterate that the two sessions were my Lurk weren’t that sneaky was probably two of the most enjoyable, as he went head on against terrible opposition. (Once the demon queen he blamed for his horrible childhood, plunging a dagger from our home country in a decade spanning Flashback that did not cost stress.)
Our leech is sneaky, but almost always hit the XP-triggers of his playbook, but it should be said that we have a tendency to hit the Cutter’s XP-triggers quite regulary as well 😀 😀 😀
The XP triggers are written for you so that you’ve got something to go on from the outset and don’t have to come up with it yourself. But if everyone at the table likes the character and it’s pretty clear that their actions deserve XP but don’t fit the trigger, just change it. It won’t hurt the game at all.
In our campaign each of the characters’ XP triggers have evolved over time to reflect who they are. In my mind the original triggers are there for early sessions, back when a character was simply The Hound, before “Darksight” became a living, breathing, fully fleshed-out scoundrel.
What would be the downside of making them a Lurk?
Declan Feeney Yes, there are six roles. That’s the point of a playbook. Leeches use alchemy and “are creative with weird tools.” It sounds more like you have a Lurk who has taken some Leech advancements.
Playbooks are not segments of tools and proficiencies, they are the character’s role in the story. You probably wouldn’t break the game too badly by changing the XP triggers, but the game has a specific section for handling playbook change. I don’t really see the point of playing a character whose advancements really aren’t meaningful to the game they actually want to play.
Benjamin Davis l’m guessing the issue might be that the player’s concept is enforced by the Leech special items and starting action dots more so than the Lurk.
There is more than one way to be sneaky than being the classical ninja.
Personally l don’t see an issue with letting players freely assign all their action dots or swapping one set of special items out for one from another playbook so they can realize their character concept on day one.
It’s a story focused game, do what sounds good for the story. If it doesn’t work, try something else. It’s just a game.
I think this comes down to a matter, not of XP Triggers, but of rather poor optimization. Its rather important, in my opinion, for a player to look at the ‘Whats’ each playbook performs, rather than the little goodies or extra dots they have. The ‘How’ is incredibly flexible and can make a staggering number of characters with ease, but if a player’s aim, the ‘what’ they want to do, clashes heavily with their chosen playbook they should consider changing. I feel its part of a GMs duty (or other players if you see a fellow player struggling) to remind them that outside gear and abilities are rather easily obtained.
While yes, there is some rigidity in this system, i feel that it acts like a keel, a backbone to the game. Its one of the few constants that help propel the characters and the story forward, and is a great source for story and character progression.
If your goal is a gadget throwing, poison using thief, what happened to make him lose all his gear and why is he having a hard time getting it back. It only has to be a small character change, but this allows you to focus on the ‘What’ he does (Thieving) as you work to flesh out your ‘how’.
Your ‘How’ is ever evolving, ever progressing, but the ‘What” stays the same, for the most part.
Even then, after all that, sometimes you can really push the meaning of those XP triggers. With just a quick change of tactics or phrasing you can make a trigger click despite the mismatch. The Lurking leech, for example, describing each obstacle, not as a patrol of guards or a pocket to be picked, but as an intricate machine or a problem of math and physics. A quick change of approach can also pull this off, rather than using your disguise to slip in without causing waves, use to to incite a bit of mayhem away from your target. While the guards a busy taking care of the assassins coming in from the east wing, you can help escort the dear magistrate to his safe room.
tl;dr: I have opinions
I’m with Mark Peterson in that each playbook has a preferred approach to solving problems and this is important factor of choosing a playbook, do I like what approach to action this playbook is about?
If you want to play a character is is good at Sway you can play a Slide or play any other playbook and give 2 dots to Sway. Question is do you want the deception and influence be your main jam or only once in a while occurrence.
Going further with this if during score you have to get into a noble mansion you can make it in a way that is your playbook preferred solution. Slide will wear a disguise and bluff the guards that he has meeting with noble, Lurk will simply climb the fence and Leech will quietly or not destroy a part of the wall. Each gives the same result – you are in noble mansion, but each has to face different consequences.
So I’m not in favor of changing xp triggers to whatever you like, however if after a session or two you realize that your PC should be a different playbook, I’d just talk with GM about changing playbooks.
Sometimes when you find yourself not fulfilling your XP triggers but you played your character well you can justify actions as expression of believes, drives, heritage and background and get an extra XP point there.
Yes, the Cutter will often find herself without oppourtunities to engage in violence, especially if the lurks perform well. It’s really OK to play a character that don’t maximise the XP-genereting routines.
Michael Esperum I think the example you gave is very wide and very well could sound “Slide and Leech had nothing to do today because Lurk performed really well”.
First and foremost I think characters should fit the crew they belong too. Cutter might not be as much needed in a crew of Shadows, but is certainly needed in a crew of Bravos, while Lurk just the opposite.
Game is a group conversation and it is both player’s and GM’s duty to give everyone opportunity to act rather than rely on one Lurk to do the job (because sneaking can be relatively safe and low risk compared to violence), even when he is rolling crits all day long. If I ware the Lurk in such situation I’d ask to be put in a situation when rescue from another character is needed -> sure I sneaked passes all the guards in the castle, but I can’t sneak past the ghost guarding the safe, so I should get back and help the Cutter get inside so that he can use his warded fists to deal with the ghosts.
My mentality with xp triggers, specifically the ones linked with playbooks, is to use them to color how I can try to influence a scene. If I’m a Cutter, I’m going to be thinking how I can apply violence to get my way or who I could’ve coerced to have made sure things go my way or I get the things I need to succeed. If I’m a Leech, I look to see how spreading Mayhem would help me succeed here or how tinkering with technology would assure or assist me.
As everyone has said though, if you feel that they should change or evolve than do it. Nothing is set in stone after all.
Pawel Solowczuk I agree, but also disagreee. The game isn’t about being perfect, most heist have twists.
I a game were I played a really magically accomplished lurk I have flashbacks and downtimes were I take the timid Player’s Cutter with me to enact violence.
I’d love to play a slide who never comes on a mission.
My lurk has plenty to do in assaults as well. Even if I’m just sneaking about the neighbourhood.
We’ve never found the XP-triggers bothersome, and fluctating XP is good. We don’t argue that much either (for the show the inner workings and disagreements of the crew-XP).
Pierce Jones says the important point.
I agree with Michael Esperum here as well when it comes to crews and playbooks; everything mixes with everything. I’ve had a group of Bravos with no Cutter whatsoever and they did fine. They likely would’ve even done better if I hadn’t been so new to the system then.
I always feel that the crew choice helps focus on what kind of jobs that the group is going to be doing often but the playbooks help define how they’ll do their jobs. In my Bravos group, there was always a lot of setup rolls to ensure that their assaults work better. Having Cutters could make it simpler but that doesn’t mean a Slide can’t do well in a group of Bravos.