Stealth in tabletop ?

[PhoneLobster]

... about Leverage RPG. It sounds oretty neat...

Uh oh, Silva likes something, that's not a good start...

If you finish with 0 beats, you choose between getting what you want and getting out safely... If you complete the task and still have beats left, then you get what you want, and get out safely.

Hmmm... The entire concept seems flawed at some fundamental level I can't quite put my finger on what it is... no wait... it's totally fucking obvious.

Aside from it being a big pile of fairy tea party...

There is at the most basic fundamental level no way to ever involuntarily fail. There are no COSTS to failing, because "fail without cost" is always a voluntary option. No one ever picks "win with a cost" since in context of the available outcomes that may as well read "lose" (which isn't ever actually an option itself). And everything forever is either "Win now or wait to win later at no cost".

I'm firmly in the camp of disliking failure states in RPGs and insisting that failure costs should be low and avoid being punitive. But the idea as described is a big pile of wasted time that lacks sufficient failure outcomes. It is like someone literally wrote the game of the strawman that "I luv permadeath" assholes throw at people who want RPGs to be a less punitive more fun experience.

[silva]

Phone, I dont know where you took the idea that "failure dont have a cost" from. As I understand it, each beat involves a test which can result in failure, and thus generate a bad outcome for the group. Also, remember the beat count can reach -1, -2, etc. which theoretically could put the players in even worse spots.

Also, Leverage uses the same "sucess with complications" concept as AW, so every test could result in "costs" being paid.

[PhoneLobster]

Phone, I dont know where you took the idea that "failure dont have a cost" from. As I understand it, each beat involves a test which can result in failure, and thus generate a bad outcome for the group.

Now this is going purely off the information you provided so...

You're assumed to succeed at what part of the task you're attempting - the test isn't to determine success or failure, but how swiftly and easily they achieve their goal.

You cannot actually fail at the individual actions, you just take longer to succeed.

And that's just the individual actions, the over all mission is the real problem because those are wins or "get away safely" which I for one read as "cost free do overs".

Also, remember the beat count can reach -1, -2, etc. which theoretically could put the players in even worse spots.

Really? Because the only information provided, third hand no less, does not in fact say that at any point.

Adding in an extra failure state might well help, then all you have is a typical MTP cluster fuck with annoying incremental accounting that worsens the situation. But it's not in the provided material so fuck you for trying on "But, remember!"

Also, Leverage uses the same "sucess with complications" concept as AW, so every test could result in "costs" being paid.

No it doesn't. I mean the AW thing is a stupid idea, and this thing is a stupid idea, but they aren't the same stupid idea, not even fucking close. Not unless you are referring to another secret feature not mentioned in the provided material.

[silva]

Well, Phone, there are much more to the gamr than that brief description. In fact, the success at a cost of Leverage works in a different way than AW, but its there.

I wil try to get more info about it. Ive seen there are Shadowrun hacks for it already, whicwhich could be an interesring substitute for the latter native engine.

[Laertes]

My issue with the Leverage system is a little different from PL's. To my reading, it seems to be the case that:

a) Any skill can be used, with a good enough story.

b) There is no limit to the number of times a skill can be used.

c) There is no point at which you have to stop trying to add beats.

Points (a) and (b) combine to mean that there is no sense to ever taking any more than one skill per character. If you can use your Beating People Up skill to solve any problem (for example, buying time) then why bother building a character who has both Beating People Up and Hacking?

Points (b) and (c) combine to mean that you can just keep on making attempts to add beats, which means you will never end the mission until you've got a positive number of beats, therefore the only options are either total success or "it's 3am, we need to go home now."

As such, this system absolutely fails to represent a tight, well-planned heist in which you need everyone's skills to combine efficiently. What it represents very well is a clownshoes mickey-mouse style comedy of errors in which people are spending only a fraction of their time doing the mission and the majority of it in trying to rescue themselves from the consequences of their own actions via digging themselves deeper into trouble. Now, it's true that much of Shadowrun in particular devolves into this sort of situation, but that's a bad thing. Heist games should be about a bunch of professionals being professionals, not a long, grinding comedy of errors.

[silva]

Laertes, I got the impression the answer for your questions is Complications. They are the resource to take the characters out of their comfort zone, and make the hacker face a receptionist who stayed till late this night (thus, forcing him to use other roles like Grifting or Hitting) or forcing the Hitter to face a terminal to open a lock (thus, using hacking). But then I never actually played the game and just began reading.

On another note, the PC game "Invisible Inc." was just released on Steam and looks deliciously interesting. It reminds me of a much better version of the old Shadow Watch.

[Stubbazubba]

What it represents very well is a clownshoes mickey-mouse style comedy of errors in which people are spending only a fraction of their time doing the mission and the majority of it in trying to rescue themselves from the consequences of their own actions via digging themselves deeper into trouble.

Have you watched Leverage? This is not far off.