Filling the roles

[klofft]

I've been playing SC for quite awhile now, but in my new game, we had an old problem pop up this weekend, and I thought I'd pick brains for more advice.

Our normal team is 4 agents.  This weekend, we had 2 guest players as well.  But this issue is relevant even with just 4.

I understand that character roles are going to be broadened in SC 3.0, but that's a year or more away.  In the meantime, how do you fill out a mission to account for character roles so that a) everyone understands what their role is and b) their role doesn't ideally limit them to "here's your scene - now sit around and be a 3rd wheel for the rest of the scenes."

I get by, and my players are easy-going.  But one player expressed frustration this weekend and I'm looking for ways to improve.

If my question isn't clear, let me know and I'll try to re-phrase.

[Crafty_Alex]

I've been playing SC for quite awhile now, but in my new game, we had an old problem pop up this weekend, and I thought I'd pick brains for more advice.

Our normal team is 4 agents.  This weekend, we had 2 guest players as well.  But this issue is relevant even with just 4.

I understand that character roles are going to be broadened in SC 3.0, but that's a year or more away.

Not exactly....   2011 for sure, and the fact we're demoing at shows like RinCon and Neoncon should be a sign we're closer than a year

 In the meantime, how do you fill out a mission to account for character roles so that a) everyone understands what their role is and b) their role doesn't ideally limit them to "here's your scene - now sit around and be a 3rd wheel for the rest of the scenes."

I get by, and my players are easy-going.  But one player expressed frustration this weekend and I'm looking for ways to improve.

If my question isn't clear, let me know and I'll try to re-phrase.

In the midst of Fantasy Craft development, Morgenstern did a bit of brainstorming on character roles which was solid. Copying and pasting from the old thread (revising for the current terminology):

Advocate: Backer
Explorer: Solver
Faceman: Talker
Hacker: Solver/Specialist
Intruder: Specialist
Pointman: Backer
Scientist: Solver
Scout: Combatant
Sleuth: Solver/Combatant
Snoop: Solver/Backer
Soldier: Combatant
Wheelman: Specialist/Combatant

I think the other tip is to take stock of the number of players, their own goals in games (if you've been playing together), and what you sort of adventures you like to run. Presuming you're going with middle of the road, you'll have some combat, some skill challenges/puzzles, and some infiltration sequences. If the party features a competent combatant, a skill monkey, and a sneaky dude of some species they're not likely to be unable to move the plot. The trick is to help them avoid overspecialization, especially in a small group, with secondary specialties. So your combatant may also have a few skill focuses that backfill the team's needs, the sneaky dude might be able to fight reasonably well, etc.

I find my groups tend to align along the classic AD&D lines of fighter, sneaker, solver, and supporter. In SC that ended up being a martial artist or channeler in the fighter role, an intruder in the sneaker role, a scientist and explorer in the solver role, and a wheelman in the supporter role.

[Sletchman]

Alex, that link leads to a page that is "either missing or off limits to me" - just so you're aware.

Edit - To avoid it being a totally pointless post...

I structure my games based on the characters that my players produce - if no one can do a certain act I either make sure that someone can call up a contact to fill that gap, or has a PL who fills it in, and if the particular ability of skill doesn't exist in the party I make sure that it will only come up as a plot point.  For example - if no one has the ability to get through a locked door or safe, I might have a mission that they know will include a well locked / secured location, making one of the objectives to find a reliable and skilled security expert.

I also try to get them to do a quick brainstorm before we get started so that everyone fills the major gaps - Combat, Solver, Sneaker, Backer [much the same as mentioned by Alex, and as laid out in the "roles" section of FantasyCraft - Page 28].

[doneatrawhagis]

I have a few things setup for my current campaign. The only thing I have written in stone is the general story idea and the first mission.

I have a Intruder/Triggerman and a Soldier/Brawler. One more that I dont know. I plan on having the first one test what they like to do. It has a secret entrance, a few locked doors, traps, enemies, and security systems. These set pieces might help me understand their play style. Have a group of enemies just sitting around, that haven't seen the PCs, and record how the PCs react. Do they charge into battle or do they sneak around and use sneak attacks, maybe throw a grenade.

Cater to the audience is my philosophy when it comes to Spycraft now a days. If I get a hacker I might add a few more missions involving hacking, maybe to help all players to feel involved, I'll allow the team to infiltrate the building the hacker is going into and help him perform his chase sequence by overriding the security and defenses.

[klofft]

Thanks for all the replies, friends.

My main point was partially missed, however.  I understand how to design missions to make sure everyone has something to do.  Furthermore, as a gaming group we have a strong preference to make sure that everyone is two base classes as soon as possible to diversify.  And that helps a lot.

The problem is that, with fairly typical DCs in SC 2.0, if you are not trained to an adequate level in a skill, you just have no business doing some things (and we don't use result caps at all).  For example, if the Intruder needs to sneak in someplace, and she's, say, career level 3, and thus can expect to face around DC 20 opposition, any "non-devoted-sneaker" who wants to join her is not going to be able to make those numbers.  Lower the DC to accomodate, and the superstar moves from shining in her field to just cakewalking.

The result is the Intruder goes in alone.  Sometimes that's not a problem when everyone else on the team has their own task, but sometimes those tasks are just not as fun or time-consuming at the table.

I'm now fearing that I'm belaboring a point that has been estbablished before re: Spycraft.

[Goodlun]

Cater to the audience is my philosophy when it comes to Spycraft now a days. If I get a hacker I might add a few more missions involving hacking, maybe to help all players to feel involved, I'll allow the team to infiltrate the building the hacker is going into and help him perform his chase sequence by overriding the security and defenses.

This is pretty much how we do thins.  In an agency game it really makes even more sense as the agency is going to try and send a team that is equipped to deal with what they expect to be the challenges ahead.  If the bad guys have a computer controlled vault that you need to get into they may want to make sure the team has a hacker on it.  Of course that being said the agency sometimes is wrong about what to expect.

[Desertpuma]

There is another alternative.

Have the PCs spend a little Reputation to request a NPC agent join them temporarily on a mission for a specific skill set. I did this with Top Secret and have done it with SC.

Basically they collectively spend 5 Reputation/Career Level of the full created NPC (just as if he were a PC) who specializes in a few particular skills (kind of like a min/max character) to handle certain situations. It alleviates the need for the actual PCs to have to spread themselves around AND it allows the NPC to do the one thing they have most trouble with. Whether it is Hacking or Driving or being the guy in the van, it makes it easier on the players if they are willing to spend for it. It also makes it so they don't have to worry about that role being filled on the team.

[Regularguy]

The problem is that, with fairly typical DCs in SC 2.0, if you are not trained to an adequate level in a skill, you just have no business doing some things (and we don't use result caps at all).  For example, if the Intruder needs to sneak in someplace, and she's, say, career level 3, and thus can expect to face around DC 20 opposition, any "non-devoted-sneaker" who wants to join her is not going to be able to make those numbers.  Lower the DC to accomodate, and the superstar moves from shining in her field to just cakewalking.

The result is the Intruder goes in alone.  Sometimes that's not a problem when everyone else on the team has their own task, but sometimes those tasks are just not as fun or time-consuming at the table.

In the first Spycraft campaign my group played, we had a cat-burglar type (who'd go in alone), an undercover type (who'd go in alone), and a Guy Who Can Get It For You type (sitting at his computer back at the safe house).  The GC may have been overly generous with the Aid Another rules, but the idea was that when Chivalry would sneak around by herself, we could plausibly offer help by giving useful advice over the radio.  I mean, who better to talk you through a break-in than a pair of Pointmen, one of whom was innocuously casing the joint in person while the other was eagerly downloading assorted blueprints?

Not that our inside man was all that hot at casing the joint, mind you; that's when Chivalry was in his ear, asking all the in-character questions about the guards and the alarms and the locks and the windows and et cetera...

[Black Cheese]

My main point was partially missed, however.  I understand how to design missions to make sure everyone has something to do.  Furthermore, as a gaming group we have a strong preference to make sure that everyone is two base classes as soon as possible to diversify.  And that helps a lot.

The problem is that, with fairly typical DCs in SC 2.0, if you are not trained to an adequate level in a skill, you just have no business doing some things (and we don't use result caps at all).  For example, if the Intruder needs to sneak in someplace, and she's, say, career level 3, and thus can expect to face around DC 20 opposition, any "non-devoted-sneaker" who wants to join her is not going to be able to make those numbers.  Lower the DC to accomodate, and the superstar moves from shining in her field to just cakewalking.

Not to be harsh, but you're approaching it the wrong way. It's not a matter of you deciding how you can get each of the PCs to shine, it's a matter of the PCs deciding how they can each shine.

Give them a goal and let the PCs figure out how to accomplish that goal. Then determine the most awesome ways to screw them up to make them use their abilities. Or even don't and let them figure out the most awesome ways to use their abilities.

Spycraft PCs are hugely competent. A few simple goals for the mission, a map or two, and some NPCs should be enough to make a mission go.

[klofft]

Thanks for the advice, but at least for my group, I respectfully disagree.

My group has suffered extraordinary analysis paralysis for most of the years they've played SC.  If I give them a situation and then let them have at it, the next couple hours (no exaggeration) becomes a planning and contingency session.

And then they finally get to gearing up.  Which used to be another hour.

So now I'm adopting a TV show model: the briefing not only tells them what needs to be done, but actually gives them most of their plan too (a la briefings in Alias).  Then I complicate as time allows.  We only get about 6-7 hours playtime per month; I can't waste it in planning.  So this model I'm asking about here works for us - I'm just looking to maximize the play time for each player.

Thanks, tho'.

[Crafty_Alex]

Thanks for the advice, but at least for my group, I respectfully disagree.

My group has suffered extraordinary analysis paralysis for most of the years they've played SC.  If I give them a situation and then let them have at it, the next couple hours (no exaggeration) becomes a planning and contingency session.

And then they finally get to gearing up.  Which used to be another hour.

So now I'm adopting a TV show model: the briefing not only tells them what needs to be done, but actually gives them most of their plan too (a la briefings in Alias).  Then I complicate as time allows.  We only get about 6-7 hours playtime per month; I can't waste it in planning.  So this model I'm asking about here works for us - I'm just looking to maximize the play time for each player.

Thanks, tho'.

Totally a fair concern. The issue of "over-planning" is something Pat and I are both keenly aware of at the table, after years of running demos and Living games, and something we want to try and alleviate. Mastercraft is already wired to help this in a few ways by its construction:

1) DCs - The overall DC structure has *slightly* lowered on average, even when using Sliding DCs. This should help characters who do not have max skill in something reliably succeed.
2) Skill caps vastly cut back - Perhaps the biggest barrier to player confidence was the hard and fast rule of skill caps, which, while mathematically structured to be mostly fair and model something like real like knowledge, was vastly unfun for most players.
3) More consolidated skill usage - With the modern MC virtually assured to have new skills included, the further consolidation of skills means every skill point is worth more - and is easier to spread around.
4) Origin skills - The new tool in the box is pick a permanent class skill, a HUGE boon to opening up skill lists a bit and ensuring broader competence outside the specialty represented by the class.

Without getting too far into specifics, we're looking at other ways to alleviate planning and encourage improvisation at the table, to keep the game more fluid and fun. The gear section is an obvious first step, and supporting what you call "the TV show model" (we generally call it Q Style) is pretty much slam dunk. We've had questions from fans about creating clearer dossier guidance, so your players don't feel they need to spend so much time planning ahead of time.  And more usable stuff in the field, such as increased use of favors and contacts for information you need in play, or more "hail-mary" or narrative control pieces could really help teams feel comfortable just going for it sometimes.

I'm lucky, my players like to wing it. But for everyone else the team thinks we could do more to help
 

[Desertpuma]

Good stuff to hear, Alex.

[klofft]

Thanks for the advice, but at least for my group, I respectfully disagree.

My group has suffered extraordinary analysis paralysis for most of the years they've played SC.  If I give them a situation and then let them have at it, the next couple hours (no exaggeration) becomes a planning and contingency session.

And then they finally get to gearing up.  Which used to be another hour.

So now I'm adopting a TV show model: the briefing not only tells them what needs to be done, but actually gives them most of their plan too (a la briefings in Alias).  Then I complicate as time allows.  We only get about 6-7 hours playtime per month; I can't waste it in planning.  So this model I'm asking about here works for us - I'm just looking to maximize the play time for each player.

Thanks, tho'.

Totally a fair concern. The issue of "over-planning" is something Pat and I are both keenly aware of at the table, after years of running demos and Living games, and something we want to try and alleviate. Mastercraft is already wired to help this in a few ways by its construction:

1) DCs - The overall DC structure has *slightly* lowered on average, even when using Sliding DCs. This should help characters who do not have max skill in something reliably succeed.
2) Skill caps vastly cut back - Perhaps the biggest barrier to player confidence was the hard and fast rule of skill caps, which, while mathematically structured to be mostly fair and model something like real like knowledge, was vastly unfun for most players.
3) More consolidated skill usage - With the modern MC virtually assured to have new skills included, the further consolidation of skills means every skill point is worth more - and is easier to spread around.
4) Origin skills - The new tool in the box is pick a permanent class skill, a HUGE boon to opening up skill lists a bit and ensuring broader competence outside the specialty represented by the class.

Without getting too far into specifics, we're looking at other ways to alleviate planning and encourage improvisation at the table, to keep the game more fluid and fun. The gear section is an obvious first step, and supporting what you call "the TV show model" (we generally call it Q Style) is pretty much slam dunk. We've had questions from fans about creating clearer dossier guidance, so your players don't feel they need to spend so much time planning ahead of time.  And more usable stuff in the field, such as increased use of favors and contacts for information you need in play, or more "hail-mary" or narrative control pieces could really help teams feel comfortable just going for it sometimes.

I'm lucky, my players like to wing it. But for everyone else the team thinks we could do more to help
 

I'm kinda thrilled that my own reflections (and even some of the rules you mention, which I also came up with) are part of the upcoming edition.

[mathey]

Yeah, that was one of my own concerns. I've played in groups that over-plan, but my current bunch (God love 'em) can't reach a consensus about what color shirts to wear to the briefing, much less their actual crazy schemes. This kind of consideration could help their indecisive ways as well as those who get into planning overkill. 

[Black Cheese]

My group has suffered extraordinary analysis paralysis for most of the years they've played SC.  If I give them a situation and then let them have at it, the next couple hours (no exaggeration) becomes a planning and contingency session. [...] We only get about 6-7 hours playtime per month; I can't waste it in planning.

I say officially adding the phrase analysis paralysis should immediately become a priority. That's awesome. If that's been used before, use it again, and, if it hasn't, use it now!

But I can see the kind of group that would come out of--I run an at-the-table glacially paced game, but an in-game-reality fast-paced game (days are sessions long--I don't know what to call that--high-stakes minutiae?), but I get 20+ hours of gaming a month, so, yeah, I can afford to be 3x as slow.

But it also helps if your PCs know what they can do. That is, given the mission, they should know someone's going to hit things, hack things, engineer things, sneak around things, or whatever, and those decisions should be able to be made fairly quickly. I mean, we still game and junk.

And then they finally get to gearing up.  Which used to be another hour.

Okay, that's a whole different issue unless PCs are lending each other gear.

So this model I'm asking about here works for us - I'm just looking to maximize the play time for each player.

Are you unhappy or are your players unhappy or both? Or neither? Some folks--like most Shadowrun players--really get pumped on mission planning. That's not a horrible downside, especially if you're a careful DM who listens to all of their worries and concerns while they're planning because invariably the PCs come up with far cooler crap than you could have... and then you get to one-up them next session. That can be fun and awesome.