Rules clarification please.
Three characters are on a score together and in close proximity. They each decide to react instinctively to a threat, and in a similar manner (i.e. use the same action). Does this count as three individual rolls or one (instinctive) team roll (the optional rules are in use)?
If it is three separate rolls and they all roll 1-3, do they each recieve a consequence from the table or one consequence for all of them (ie a single complication would be applicable to all three)?
The way I would run it at my table: group actions are for the group if they choose to take them. The group can act individually towards a goal without using a group action mechanic if they choose.
Part of the question is how the rest of the mechanics fit together. For example, you could say a pit trap yawns beneath them and they all have to escape it, and Prowl likely makes the most sense for that. If they all jump together, then all of them use the highest roll. Nobody falls unless everybody falls. A complication is likely to be one character hanging on another, or losing something down the pit.
If the threat is a pile of fighters assigned a 4 segment clock, then that’s different. The GM could tell them every round the clock is not defeated each one of them will suffer a consequence of a Tier 2 stabbing. Then they could fight as a group to use only the best roll in the group, but they’d all likely need to resist one or more stabbings. Or they could break up and fight individually and risk a greater number of complications that would likely affect everyone for each complication, but probably fill the clock faster.
If the threat is a single monstrous creature, then the GM could say a complication is likely a Tier 2 injury (successful resist negates) and a failure means someone gets crushed to death (successful resistance involves reducing to a tier 2 injury). If they tackle it as a group, their risk is much lower, but they could attack it individually and risk a number of consequences instead of just one.
Not everyone runs the game as I do, and I imagine I’ll get some criticism for this, but these are examples of how I’d handle threats where the whole group is responding individually or with a group action to a sudden threat that affects all of them.
Oh, also, sometimes I would make a situation more desperate if they worked together, other times less desperate if they worked together.
Like, for the jump to safety, that would start “difficult” and if they tried to do it together escalate to “desperate” because there’s a level of split second paying attention to others.
But for fighting a big monster, that would start at “difficult” and downgrade to “dominant” because they could flank it, so that would be an additional motive to work together.
I wouldn’t have all three people roll. I wouldn’t really do that in any game. Use something – probably fiction – to determine who acts first. Have them act. Don’t ask the others what they’re doing yet. If the first person wants to lead a group action, the others can go along or not. If the first person acts and the threat is still a threat, ask someone else what they’re doing.
Don’t have everyone roll one thing at once, that’s just a mess.
Mike Pureka Three people might roll in a round, but not all at once. Somebody goes and we see how that changes the circumstance, then someone else, then someone else.
I allow more collaboration between players regarding group actions than you suggest.
Different styles with the same tools. =)
Andrew Shields
I think we’re agreeing here – you ask each person, in turn, what they are doing. Not all at once.
And… how do have more collaboration than “If someone wants to lead a group action, and other people want to follow, then there can be a group action”?
I thought you were saying you determine who acts first (as GM or as a group) and if they want a group action, fine they can explore that with the other players, otherwise they act and on to the next guy.
Where I tend to set up the situation and the players decide what to do. Unless I’m jumping out at one of them with some threat, they decide their own order of action and level of collaboration. Anybody can suggest collaboration, I may even offer it (as they generally need a refresher on how it works anyway.)
I generally only pick a person to go first if either a threat pounced on them OR the pace is listing and I need to know what the characters are doing and no one steps forward.
Andrew Shields
Oh, so the only difference there is that you are letting the players pick order of action? That’s fine too. My habit is just to name one to save all the haggling that comes with letting them decide. 😉
This is one reason why there’s a person on point. They decide what to do in the fiction to react, and that will in turn tell you what Action they’re using, and whether they’re leading the group or doing their own thing.
If you do it the other way, trying to choose actions and “turns” and such mechanically first, it gets confusing. Just stick to what the person on point actually does in the fiction as their reaction, then the rules will fall into place.
I’m just suggesting that the group decide to do a group action and pick who’s on point, rather than the GM pointing at a player and asking if they’re going to try to lead a group action.
So, I’m not even sure what the discussion is at this point. Anyway, I’m more interested in the players telling me what mechanics they want to use or ask me what mechanics are available than otherwise.
Who’s on point should already be known. Its the question that kicks off a score: “Who’s on point?”. Whenever someone moves off point, someone else should take it up then.
So in the scenario in the opening post, the group shouldn’t have to decide who’s on point. And the player on point should decide how to deal with the threat; everyone else should back them up.
Oliver Granger That is an interesting point. I have not expected my players to always have a point person, I’ve just had them identify it for group actions. That would change the tenor of a heist and could be an interesting adjustment to how I run the game. To explain that at any given moment, someone is in charge.
Always having a point person would get more complicated when the group splits up across 2-5 locations, where each one is sort of point for their area. I’ll have to think about that further.
Andrew Shields
It’s not really that bad; Either the crew is still coordinating in some way, in which case only one person is on point, or they’re not, in which case they can’t take group actions. Unless you have a whole lot of players, I don’t see there ever being more than two on point people.
I see “a person on point” now as distinct from “group action.” I previously assumed there was really ever only a person on point during a group action. As
Oliver Granger points out, “on point” is established at the beginning even with no anticipation of an immediate on point action.
And as you were describing your process, there’s a person you go to who seems to be “on point” at the moment and ask if they want to kick off a group action or what.
Between those two perspectives, it seems that there’s a suggestion that there should always be a “caller” for the group, but that caller role can shift between people fluidly. Still, there’s always a point of contact for the GM to ask what the group is doing.
At least, those are the thoughts this conversation has sparked for me. I’m still deciding what I think of that.
Yeah, that’s how I’ve run split groups. More often its been one person off on dalliance, so they must be on point.
It’s worth noting that being on point doesn’t just mean you’re in charge, it also means you’re the most exposed to danger, the most likely to be noticed. So having someone always on point makes it easier to pick who’s hurt or in trouble when things go bad
Yep yep yep.
Also, if you forget or aren’t strict about a point person, its usually fine. It’s not a super hard rule, but it does address the issue at hand here.