Re: [BNW] Sneak Weak?

[Theo McGuckin <tsm@jlab.org>]

> There's a couple of problems with that, though.  For one thing, a group of 
> characters is only as sneaky as the least-sneaky character (like the story 
> about two guys trying to outrun a tiger).  The same doesn't apply to combat. 
>   Which means Sneaks are not that sneaky, overall.

That's not entirely accurate. You can have someone that isn't good at
combat (like a healer) so they don't get involved as much (and the player
just has to sit back and wait for his turn). The same could be said for
the sneak.

> Unless you're encouraging a lot of "My character goes off while the rest of 
> the party does something else."  Unfortunately, even with the relatively 
> simplified game mechanics of BNW (well, compared to, say its "predecessors 
> DL and HoE, at any rate ;) ), running mini solo-adventures can be somewhat 
> of a pain.  the only way to make them less harmful is to...well, not require 
> the Sneak to sit there and make a lot of rolls.

But the Sneaking could be done in parallel with the rest of the group. Say
the group is trying to get into a compound, the combat fiends start up a
ditraction and the sneak goes in, stealthing past a few guards. The
sneak's actions can be run in turn with the combat. Just have everyone
roll init. and take their actions as usual. Just because the sneak isn't
involved in the same encounter doesn't mean he can't take actions during
the fight.
Ugh, it's 4 in the morning and I'm stuck at work I don't think I'm getting
my point across well at all. 
Hell Steve, you've got a sneak in your group (yes, I read your chronicles
and am anxiously waiting for week 5 etc.) How is that working? My argument
is pretty weak coming from a guy that has yet to play the game (but my
first game is on sunday!)

> No, I know what you mean, and it's not what I meant.  ;)  What I mean is 
> that if you succeed at a Sneak roll, you...succeed.  There's no shades of 
> gray.  As you note, it's all-or-nothing (or a series of all-or-nothing).  
> How many ways can you embellish "You succeed."  You can oversaturate the 
> players with nifty ways of describing it, but the basic situation remains 
> the same - you succeed.
> 
> Plus, succeeding at Stealth doesn't lead to a different set of variables.  
> If I shoot you, I can describe the hit location.  I can describe the 
> intensity of the wound.  I can describe the nature of the stun check and its 
> success or failure.  If I succeed at a Stealth roll, all it does is lead 
> into the next, separate action (which may be another Stealth roll, or 
> whatever).

Well you could develope the stealth rules more:
A success means you aren't spotted, but you don't make any progress
towards your goal.
Two successes mean you make some progress (half way)
Three successes- you clear the room without even leaving a breeze in your
wake.
This would add shades of gray and actually a better level of realism. And
like I said you can add modifiers based on what the char. does. Safer/more
conservative actions yeild better odds, but less progress, "going for it"
gets you there faster but with greater risk.
Stuff like this can be used to improve the "You succeed, you fail"
situation. Also a failure may not mean that the Sneak is caught, but that
the guards are aware of something being out of place...

> Certainly there should be chances to "role-play" the environment.  But...
> 
> Remember what I said above about the Sneak being a solo character?  You go 
> into that much detail (which gets dangerously close to the "describe the 
> environment" overload which many rule-designers recommend to GMs anyway), 
> and the rest of the players are going to be twidding their thumbs, whipping 
> out their Gameboys, playing Magic the Gathering (tm), etc.

Well what does the Healer do during a fight? What does the bouncer (who
doesn't like to use guns) do when a firefight breaks out? Just because
others can't sneak as good doesn't mean the sneak goes off on his own, it
just means they should lead the way.
Take a group sneaking into a compound. The whole group can't just run
across the yard because there are fences and guards at spotlights. So the
sneak goes in, gets across the yard and takes out one guard on spotlight
allowing the rest of the group to get through.
This could lead to a type of sneak close-combat specialist. No other power
package has the subtlty that the sneak does (well maybe a teleporter in a 
way). Give him a good pistol with a silencer/flash suppressor and he could
be a real threat, picking people off from a shadow 20 ft. while everyone
is checking 100yds. away at the tree line for a sniper...

> And I still thinking we're talking about two different things.  I'm not 
> talking "exciting" - I'm talking "dramatic."  A combat can be for all the 
> marbles.  It's a "we need combat to take out the bad guy before he detonates 
> the bomb."  Or "If I don't hack into the system before the virus goes off, 
> the world economy is doomed."  Or even "If I don't persuade that woman to 
> hand me the detonator, we're all dead."
> 
> Stealth is more of a means to an end, rather than a way to accomplish the 
> end itself.  You can sneak up behind the bad guy to backstab him (A&D Thief 
> characters take note), but that means Combat is the driving force.  You may 
> have to sneak into the HQ to get at the top-security computer terminal, but 
> that means Computer is the driving force.
> 
> And when you try to make Stealth the driving force ("All I have to do is 
> sneak around the bad guy to press the button to stop the bomb.") it tends to 
> be somewhat anti-climactic, no matter how many opportunities you give the 
> Sneak to take advantage of the environment to boost his Stealth roll.

It doesn't have to be the driving force, but it can be an integral part of
the encounter. Take the final scene in "Patriot Games" Harrison Ford is in
the darkened house dodging from cover to cover trying not to be spotted by
the guys with the machineguns and nightvision goggles. This scene was both
exciting and dramatic. Sure it ended with a boat chase and big
explosion/combat. But without the significant sneaking portion the outcome
would have been very different (and a lot more bloody for the good guys).

-Theo McCracken, whose thoughts and ideas are solely his own and do not, 
in any way, reflect those of Jefferson Lab or its staff. Unless of
course there is any money to made off those ideas, in which case the lab
says: "Gimme, gimme, gimme!"