Zornhau Forums

Marras wrote:I think there was one scene in Captain Alatriste movie.

Ooh, that was a nice one! I just recently read an Alatriste novel to get into the feel of the era, but somehow I didn't think of the movie...

As for your suggestions, I'm not sure the stress track would fit into our system. We just don't have such concept in use. We don't even have hit points.

The idea of dividing the dice pool is definitely our cup of tea, but... what would the movement successes really mean? Tracking actual distances that the character has moved would get old pretty fast. It could mean successfully moving from one area to the next, but unless we draw up the whole map of the area, is that really going to be an exciting detail?

And this latter point really ties in to our main hurdle right now -- the core of stealth scenes seem to be about exploiting loopholes, being aware of one's surroundings and a creative approach in general. But... unless I have a floor plan, and I rarely do, then coming up with the interior of buildings for the stealth purposes is one of the toughest things for me as a GM. In addition, loopholes are very hard to pin down for the players unless the GM goes into extreme detail with the description.

So, I'm kind of curious how do you guys run these kind of scenes. Do you use detailed floor plans? Or do you sketch up the area? Or do you just wing it?

I read all Alatriste novels that were translated to Finnish and loved every one of them. Great books.

Yes, I had a feeling that your system doesn't have hit points but I used it as a sort of reference that is easy for everyone to understand. I don't know if your system use some sort of cumulative trauma tracking or not. If you have that kind of system, then maybe that stress track would work in a similar way?

Movement success means a similar thing in stealth scene as successful hit in combat. Better the success the further you can get in penetrating the security of the site the similar way as successful hit gives (maybe?) more damage in combat.

I don't know how detailed the map should be. Maybe it would suffice to divide the are to subareas (for example yard, ground level, second level, roof, basement). Then each level might have difficulty to beat using movement to clear. I don't know if this gets too abstract in the end.

How I have run things and how my GMs have run stealth scenarios is that there usually is a more or less detailed map of the area. GM usually draws it while it is being explored. Personally I don't usually go to very much detail but at least one GM got pretty detailed in those situations as well.

Usually players ask what kind of cover there is or might even ask it more directly (is there a bush that can be used as a cover). Then I wing it using that input. But without any kind of map the whole planning and tactics of infiltration is lost.

In one PMC game our team had a plan to infiltrate a building using ladders and by climbing them to the roof. Our GM made us do climbing checks and there were quite a lot of failures and while we (of course) got safely to the roof, the ladders caused too much racket. We just barely had a chance to get the ladders hidden before a guard came looking. So improvising about the dice roll outcomes is quite crucial.

While I'm not so keen on a stress point system, I do like the idea of separating movement and hiding mechanically. Alternatively, it could be run using the combat system - moving quietly would be a d10 action that only allows you to move a short distance, which you can increase by taking penalties to your stealth. I'd imagine darkness already hampers visibility in combat; it would mean that sticking to the shadows is a good way to avoid being seen. Using a d10 for stealthy movement would also model the idea that you're waiting for the opportune moment rather than dashing out at the first opportunity.

I'd personally use a map for stealth, every time. Ideally I'd have my own copy of the map, while the players get a hand drawn map that gets drawn as things come into view. If they got a map in advance, it'll probably be a rough, hand drawn affair.

Is initiative roll really necessary until things go sour and the thief has to react quickly?

Marras wrote:Is initiative roll really necessary until things go sour and the thief has to react quickly?

The main goal of initiative is to determine the sequence of actions in combat, so, it isn't really necessary for stealth.

Marras wrote:Movement success means a similar thing in stealth scene as successful hit in combat. Better the success the further you can get in penetrating the security of the site the similar way as successful hit gives (maybe?) more damage in combat.

We've pondered over several solutions, but... I'm completely torn on the map issue.

On one hand, it seems like a vital tool for running a good stealth scene, but... then again, our combat is pretty much set up in an abstract environment. So, if we've managed to avoid the map requirement for combat so far then including them for stealth feels kinda off.

Let's analyze this.

It feels to me that in combat, the reason maps are supposed to be the best thing ever is that you can look over bits of terrain and go "Wait, is that squiggly line a table? Maybe I can climb on that, or flip it over or something?" The idea being that the player supposedly has more information at hand that might give him an unusual tactical choice.

Narrative combat scenes work under the premise that: A) the Narrator has given you a pretty decent lay of the land to begin with, and is keeping up with changes in his descriptions and B) that details that aren't specified can be invented by the players, provided they are in keeping with the area. If we're fighting in a mansion, and I feel particularly Errol Flynn, I don't need the map to suggest that there might be a sword mounted on a wall, or a chandelier one can swing from, etc. The player is expected to help provide the narration, rather than strictly react to narration given to them.

Now, if we're looking at a stealth environment, the conversation is exactly the same. The GM should be giving them a bunch of information to begin with -- possibly depending on how well the characters know the area, or how much time they spent staking it out -- and then there can be ad-libbing, suggestion, and negotiation.

If I point out that there is a wall and a guard tower, the most obvious question is: "Is there a place where one can climb it without being seen?"

To which the most obvious answer seems to be: "Uh. Hm. I don't know. Make me a Cunning/Larceny check."

Would we be missing something huge by going this route?

As I like to draw some sort of map for combats so people can see approximate distances and directions between various combatants and significant areas like where is the road or a house but nothing too detailed in a way of D&D or some strategy games. Same way I feel that if maps are omitted completely in stealth scenes those scenes loose some of the cool tactical decisions. I might draw just a wall surrounded yard, oulines of buildings and something other that I think is significant. Then I add the details as necessary based on how players respond to the situation.

I would use some sort of roll too on a situation you described and use the outcome as a guideline what details to add.

Marras wrote:As I like to draw some sort of map for combats so people can see approximate distances and directions between various combatants and significant areas like where is the road or a house but nothing too detailed in a way of D&D or some strategy games. Same way I feel that if maps are omitted completely in stealth scenes those scenes loose some of the cool tactical decisions. I might draw just a wall surrounded yard, oulines of buildings and something other that I think is significant. Then I add the details as necessary based on how players respond to the situation.

I would use some sort of roll too on a situation you described and use the outcome as a guideline what details to add.

The quote about maps in higgins response was from me. Hah. Im a very big improv-heavy GM, because my players chose their actions based on some version of the heisenburg uncertainty principle - if you can guess what they're going to do, they've already changed their mind. So anything that requires me to pre-map a location is basically asking me to house-rule it away. A lot of times I'll do a quick sketch of something, if it comes up, but I've got only so much time to prep a session and I prefer using that time to work on plot ideas and characters. Stat blocks and maps are specifically why I can't D&D.

I'm wondering how much of it is "this needs specific mechanics" (a la the stealth meter or other dedicated sub-systems) and how much of it is simply training the GM to run the scene properly via advice within the book itself. Simple things like allowing the Larceny skill to let the player suggest routes around obstacles or guards may go a long way towards creating the right feel without having to go as far as creating "Stealth maneuvers" or something.

Just a thought. I'll continue to cook on this, but I'm going to try to focus on writing up the beta - we get a little closer every day.

Ha! You got me on that one

Well, I don't want to spend my time drawing too detailed maps, either. Personally some sort of map makes it easier to improvise more details, to keep things consistent.

Is an ultra detailed stealth subgame absolutely necessary for Bastards? Probably not. It all depends on how you want to represent stealth scenes. My analysis about it is this.

1) Stealth scenes deserve more attention than other games so far have provided as if it is run properly it can create great gaming memories and experiences.

2) One failed roll should not destroy the whole scene as that discourages the use of stealth (as it just fails at some point anyway). Still, failed checks should have some ill effects to make things more interesting and exciting rather than make players feel left down. Of course a total newbie at that business should not expect to make wonders same way as novice fighters can easily get their asses kicked.

3) How to make scenes with multiple thieves work? This relates pretty well to point above.

4) What is the objective of stealth scenes? To make it easier to kill someone should be only one of the possible objectives and even then if you have to kill any more than your target it might be thought to have been at least partial failure, in the end.

That's my take on it. When you finish your beta rules it gets easier to throw more ideas around as some ideas can work with some base mechanics but would seem very awkward with some other mechanics.

One thing I like about the way Runequest 6 does it is that if the perception check beats the stealth checks, the person sneaking around is spotted. If the stealth check beats the perception check, the person sneaking around gets where they're going without being seen. If both fail, the person sneaking makes no progress but remains unseen.

It's a pretty basic system, but it works pretty well.

I think one aspect of stealth missions should be noted. In some cases it is not enough that you can do your job without being noticed but it should not be noticed even after the mission is over.

For example you get to a room unnoticed and then search it. Maybe you find a document and it is enough that you read it without having to steal it. Then you make your exit without anyone noticing you. Next day someone walks into the room and the question remains, can he notice that someone have been going through his stuff? Maybe things are at a bit different order than he usually keeps them? Maybe a painting is not tilted a bit to one side as it used to?

Of course this is mostly done as a roleplaying and maybe included in one roll but it is one thing to keep in mind when running stealth based scenarios.