Finally got my paper copy. I had question about the mixing up (again):
“Take control of the server room and make sure the security team doesn’t escape,”
How look this is in the table?
So I assume the following: The party is in the security room, with 4 enemy. I choose this goal, roll on mix it up. I got 10+.
So the MC says like this: you killed 2 guard and knocked out the other two, nobody could escape. We do not count the harm of the weapons ot the weapon type, this just happened. Am I right?
Sounds right to me, but I’m new to PbtA. /subbing in case I’ve got this wrong 🙂
Up to the MC. BC, if it didn’t matter at all, why give enemies armor?
I would say either way, you get your objective unfettered. Whether or not the MC wants to track the harm or just end the NPC, is up to them.
You can count harm of the weapons.
In fact I insist as it doesn’t devalue player characters who choose to optimize their use of weapons/armor because they are going to be using violence as resolution mechanic (a player with the Killer playbook for example).
Otherwise you can have a character, who is likely not a combat expert, neutralize an elite response team with one gunfire exchange with a pistol, which while hilarious in certain contexts, seems odd to be possible on regular basis.
Also whenever an “and” is need to describe an action, that is usually a queue that multiple rolls need to happen (if each action doesn’t automatically succeed of course).
So to address the first goal of controlling a server room, on a success the enemy temporarily falls back or re-positions IF they are tough and had enough armor/health to resist the harm of whatever weapon was used.
But the enemy is still nearby; still an imminent threat. So the player’s next goal might be to maintain control of the server room…
Can you describe how you imagine this scene during the play. What rolls, how the MC use the NPC, calculate their harms (and armors) etc?
You’re leaving out describing how you do this, for one thing. If you’re trying to knock 2 people out from across the room, with a pistol, regular ammo, well, that might not be possible.
The goal itself might not be possible, depending on the guards. The ‘and’ clause in there I think really depends on some things you don’t mention. Are these rent-a-mooks or elite folks? Are they entrenched in positions of cover or standing around with their backs to you? You might only be able to take control of the room, depending on the guards.
If these are rent-a-mooks they’ll require 2 harm to be taken out. If you have a pistol, and they’re not already entrenched behind cover, this is maybe feasible. It might be that you need an +area weapon, or be the Killer and have the MilSpecs move. That’s the kind of thing I am happy to ask the players about, and point out the meta pros and cons. We all want +area weapons to mean something, we want Mil Specs to mean something. I think for most playbooks with most weapons, against rent-a-mook guards, it’s feasible to take control of the room, absolutely, but it might not be feasible to seize the room and stop all the guards. Much like how you can’t roll Mix It Up to kill a hovertank with a pistol.
Some of this depends on what you’re going for in the game, and what the players want. If they want all the playbooks to be able to do some action-movie stuff, it seems more legit, but you really still have to think about, how do area weapons work. How does a Killer with MilSpecs work. If you want things to be more gritty, you might have to negotiate these kind of goals down. Just make sure everyone wants a gritty game, have that discussion first.
So to refine my answer a little bit, or expand. Let’s say the guards are all wearing serious 2-armor gear. You have a pistol with regular ammo. You say the goal is to take control of the room and stop all the guards – kill them, etc, just make sure they can’t raise an alarm, escape, etc.
I would say that’s not a reasonable goal. You can definitely drive them off, for now. But your 2-harm weapon isn’t going to do any damage to them, not anything serious, right? This is a fun time as the MC to offer a choice – you can kill one of these guys with an amazing shot, and they won’t have time to set an alarm off because you’re keeping them pinned down, but they’re still there and you still have to deal with them. Or you can drive them off, but they’re still alive and able to find an alarm terminal and set it off.
So just because the player says ‘this is my goal,’ doesn’t mean that goal is realistic in the game. It doesn’t make it attainable. The goal is subject to negotiation, or even an outright veto. If the goal is to fire a rifle up into the CEO of the arcology’s office, from street level, well. I guess it’s good to dream big, but that doesn’t make it attainable. The PCs can’t jump to the moon either.
Ok it helps a lot. So one thing is the goal and then I must check it is accesible with the waepons/skill/plot. If not then (as MC) I offer a lesser goal.
This is very interesting discussion on the workings of MCing PbtA. I’d like to tag Richard Rogers and Jason Cordova , who run a lot of PbtA, and see if they want to add anything. I haven’t run this yet, but I’d like to!
Oh, and Tim B !
.
So I thought about it. Still the server room as example. There is 4 guard and 3 pc, they want to neutralize the enemies.
PC1: roll for mix it up 10+ >kill a guard
PC2: roll 8, he select: take harm. In this case there are still 3 guard. They do 3-harm with their weapons. PC gets: a) 3 harm (one guard shots), b) 5 harm (3harm+1+1 as they concentrate their fire) c) 3*3harm from each individual. ???
PC3: roll below 6, nothing achieved (skip the harm/hard move phase for him)
So they had “one round”. If they want to seize this room, they need to try it again. Is this right?
That depends I feel like the players have to be very clear about what they want to try and do and how they want to go about it. That will determine what moves trigger for which players.
If two players are just trying to seize the room by shooting and killing the guards, it’s probably a mix it it up for one pc, and an aid/interfere for the 2nd pc.
The number of guards affected, as well as how many are dead or incapacitated depends on the weapon you used, their armor, and who your character is. Assuming they all have 2 armor. I think on a 10+:
a killer with a missle launcher kills all of them.
A ninja infiltrator with a flashbang and a sword might be able to do the same.
If you’re a hacker with a machine pistol, you probably damage them just enough to get your objective, but perhaps it’s transient, and the danger isnt over.
And if you are a reporter with a taser, there is no way the mc should allow you to mix it up against four armored guards with guns pointed at you, that makes no fictional sense.
As far as tracking harm, think of what hamish says about what the harm clock represents for npc’s more than giving them each a harm clock as ‘hit points’. Go with the fiction! 😀👍
So. You are a reporter a with a taser versus 3 enemy. What can be your goal? Stun them? Stun one of them? If stun one of them you must roll for the other 2?
Auer Balázs From what I understand of the rules, I think the answer here is: Whatever the GM finds appropriate, keeping in mind the principle that the GM is a fan of the players. Does it make sense to you that a reporter might take all 3 guards out before they spot him or are able to react? I wouldn’t think so, unless the reporter has synthetic nerves and the guards don’t. Or if he sneaks up on at least one of them (which might require a different move).
Perhaps this is a good point to say to the player: “It doesn’t look like you could take them out on your own. Maybe try a different approach?”
This is a feature (some say ‘bug’) of PbtA. The encounter can be as difficult as you think it should be. If it makes sense to you fictionally that it can be taken care of in 1 roll, go for it. If it doesn’t, then yeah, maybe you stun one of them and then you have to Act Under Pressure to deal with the other 2…
I’m still wrapping my head around PbtA too. All that I just said may be completely wrong.
And, FWIW, this is my biggest issue with PbtA.
I don’t have an accurate gauge of my characters capabilities. In more trad games, you can estimate the odds of success at any given endeavor pretty accurately. Say, in D&D, can your Level 2 Fighter take out a kobold with an arrow at 200 feet in a single shot before he runs and hits the alarm? You have better than even odds. In the Sprawl, can your Synth Nerve chipped Infiltrator take out 4 guards in a room with her 9mm Militech semi-auto silenced pistol? EDIT: in a single Mix it up roll I think she could. It’s a cool scene from a ton of movies. However, the answer is: Only if the GM thinks it’s reasonable. (Note: this doesn’t even take into account the actual roll. Just the ability to do it.)
Again, still learning and trying to wrap my head around it.
Auer Balázs The goal can be create an opportunity for a fellow PC to accomplish a different goal. So the goal is distract/divide
Now the enemy is distracted and maybe a fellow PC doesn’t need to Act Under Pressure anymore. It’s still going to flow off the fiction and who/what/where is in the scene.
Eloy Cintron Yeah, it’s kind of that way. But the solution is easier than you might think. PBTA games are a conversation. Also the GM is supposed to be a fan of the characters. So, you can ask the GM if your character can do something in particular. The answer will be yes most of the time barring fictional circumstances, a move will be triggered, and you’ll roll. You’ll see how it works soon enough. 🙂
Daniel Lugo Oh, definitely looking forward to that!!!
I think I start to understood but still a bit complex for me. I tried other PBTA games (dungeon world, regiment, and the proto-sprawl) where the combat was more “traditionally”. I like “hard” rules what can PC do and what do not because this kind of approach often result debates/fights in the table. Or – as MC – sometimes I have bad taste when I must chose that a PC can or cannot do it.
But anyway thanks for the help!
A lot of stuff has been said already, but here’s how I would run it as a GM :
The goal is to ‘Not let the security team escape’. Clear.
Roll Mix it Up, 10+, goal succeeds.
Describe how you open fire and slam the door shut etc etc.
The security team is a single threat (a Small Gang), and thus have a single Harm clock. Their Harm Clock increases equal to the Harm you dealt (-1 for gang advantage and – for armor).
Now, and this is important : as long as the security team’s Harm Clock isn’t at 00:00, they are STILL a threat!
So, yes. You succeeded in your objective : they are now trapped in this room with you, but you didn’t kill them or neutralize them. And they’re going to charge you to try and regain the advantage.
Remember, you objective is NEVER to kill everyone. And thus, that should hardly ever be the result.
It’s going to take a bit more work, creative storytelling and Mix it Ups / Act under pressures etc. to get them to 00:00 and totally neutralize them as a Threat.
Rick Sorgdrager sorry but this is not realistic, and I mean realistic by player’s perspective. Most of the times the fastest and easiest way is to kill the enemy. If you kill them they couldn’t cause further problem (especially grunt like in the example) So, basically the party try to wipe them out then they could do anything without any interfere. So they will says lot of time “try to kill XY…” because this is how the things work (in our table)
BTW the gang is a good idea, I never used them earlier.
It’s suggested in the book. The quote goes something like “Killing everyone should rarely be an objective. The crew are professionals, not psychopaths”.
I want my players to try and keep their mission in mind when they engage an enemy force. Therefore, they always provide an objective. Any harm dealt is dealt in the violence and struggle to achieve that objective.
Objectives could still be “Stop the security team from harming me”, but in most real life firefights an enemy force will retreat to safety before they can be wiped out. You’ll have dealt them some Harm and killed off 1 or 2 goons, but they’ll be back later (unless attacked with a 5-Harm Big Fucking Gun).
Ok, maybe I see your point. Big changes needs both in the Mc and the players thinking to use this kind of mechanic. Most games the fight is the most important sub-system, but here this is just a minor, quick action.
Yeah, it’s been an interesting transition for my players too. Combat has as much weight as a social interaction : 1 roll and the problem is solved (or gets worse!)
In some cases with especially badass enemies I have used a more ‘traditional’ combat pace with blow-by-blow Moves and action (“He ducks and slashes at you! What do you do?” “You smash his face in and he darts backwards. He takes out a pistol and fires off several shots. What do you do to avoid harm?”) etc.
It’s a very different system, but very fun.
Ok so take a step back.
I say my goal eg: neutralize the guards. I roll 5, so the MC takes a hard move I got harm and maybe reinforcement arrives. In this case I need to roll again to neutralize them (assumed that my character still capable of)?
So it is possible to use multiple Mix it up action after each other to solve a situation.
Yep. If I GM’d that, I might also change the narrative situation on the players. For instance :
A squad of 8 guards moves down the hallway, attempting to gain on the crew as their hacker hacks a terminal.
The crew’s Killer decides to Mix it up. He states his objective :
“Buy our hacker time by scaring off these fucking guards”.
10 + : The guards are forced to retreat out of the hallway. They (a small gang) suffer 3 Harm from the Killer’s assault rifle, and the MC describes how he took 3 guards out before they could retreat.
Problem solved.
5 : No luck! The killer manages to take out a guard (as MC I rarely assume nobody gets hurt in a fight, so I say he still dealt 1 Harm), but the squad moves ahead.
As a MC I can now make a move.
I decide for something Dramatic, so I ‘Put someone in a spot’ :
The Killer is knocked to the ground as he’s shot in the shoulder! (Deal Harm). Before he can get up, a guard is on him, pointing a gun in his face. “What do you do?”
OR
The Killer has to dodge into a sideroom to avoid a hail of bullets! The squad is free to enter the room with the hacker! “Hacker, the door is kicked in as 2 guards walk in brandishing rifles. What do you do?”
OR
The Killer actually manages to hold them off! He thinks? Maybe there’s another, more sinister reason the guards are pulling back… Suddenly, self destructing kill-drones are released into the hallway! (Show them the barrel of a gun MC move)
The possibilities for cool stuff beyond “You get shot” on a 6- are endless! Be creative, think of cool movies you’ve seen and emulate that kickass action and twists.
I got distracted, about the multiple Mix it Ups.
A Move always resolves the problem and achieves the goal.
So if the goal is “Get rid of the guards” and I roll a 10+, I got rid of them. That does not mean they’re DEAD.
Most likely I deal them some Harm and they retreat. 30 minutes later during the session, those guards might suddenly show up again after having regrouped though! (and they’d still have the Harm from earlier)
Maybe this time you can finish them off.
Thanks Rick this helped a lot. Really.
Not easy for me but start to understand.
No problem! Have fun with your game!
Keep in mind that a problem may be complex enough that a single move only deals with one component of a larger problem. When I’m describing a combat scene there is usually enough going on that the players have to think about exactly what they are trying to accomplish. And don’t forget that time marches on; just because the players suppressed the security team for now doesn’t mean that they won’t be a problem in a few minutes as the fiction continues to unfold.
I’ve come into this late and skimmed the responses but if your goal is to take control of the room with a pistol and you are outgunned/outnumbered that’s probably not a “mix it up” roll. I would rule that a “playing hardball” roll instead with everyone leaving the room or cowed on a success, weighing it up on a partial success (and possibly having one go down if they take harm as established). On a bad roll the result might be a follow up “hold steady” with the unimpressed guards reaching for their guns.