[Tactical Ops] Playtest

[RosenMcStern]

So, at last we could try Hasimir's new game at the last EtrusCon. I will post a brief commentary here. Unfortunately we could only play for 2-3 hours and stage only one conflict because of time constraints, but it is enough to give an initial, non-exhaustive feedback.

Players: Patrick (who explained the rules), Rafu, Klaus, two local guys (Mirko and another one whose name I cannot remember) and me. Setting: we are the members of a hi-tech gang of robbers imprisoned in a 1997-style island of Manhattan turned into a maximum security prison for trying to steal Fort Knox (and no, I did not write steal instead of rob by mistake: we decided we had tried to actually steal it).

After a definitely fun pitch phase (see above) and chargen step, we determine why and when we want to get out of jail. I get the lead by proposing to go break into the director's office (I was the team infiltrator) accompanied by the deceitful guy of the team to distract any guards. We meet two guards, that the other players have decided are rather likely to be there, and the office is protected by a lock that requires a card. As I am a hi-tech lockpicker, I esteem that I can take care of the lock, but not without one of the cards that the guards have: if they turn out to be the wrong cards, I can at least try to "McGyver" us out of the situation.

The "you can only describe what your character perceives" rule works rather well at this stage, as the facts that the available cards might be the wrong ones and that the office might have an alarm that is not obvious to the intruder if it goes off (someone suggested this detail) are relevant, but we cannot insert them into the narration at this stage. This helps us stay focused on the job at hand. Good rule.

Then things get a little murky. We realize there are two obstacles (the guards and the door) and the deceitful guy goes for the guards in order to distract them and help me snatch one of the cards. As we are not very skilled with the rules the distraction attempt fails. Then I realize that we might have staged the conflict incorrectly, as the cards are not a goal in themselves, but a way to get the door open. We find out the rule that says that you can use the result of one guy's roll as a bonus to the next player's attempt, and decide to re-stage the conflict so that the deceit attempt is just a preparatory action for my pickpocketing. Again, the roll fails but at least this time the way we are using the rules starts to make sense to us. At this point we all have other games scheduled so we decide we have seen enough of this game and give up, leaving our heroes in jail.

The general impression is still split between "like" and "do not like". The rules do their job fairly well, all the pieces fit together to produce a result that is plausible for the action attempted, and you are forced to "build up" your success in a conflict, like in the above example, if the obstacles are non-trivial. It makes sense.

However, everyone felt that the system is rather complicate (for a gm-less game, I might wish to add). We obviously needed a better grasp of the mechanics in order to actually enjoy the gameplay, but we had a general "feeling" that the learning curve would be so steep that this would discourage us from trying further. And since we were all more "dedicated" players than your average Joe gamer, this might turn out to be a problem if the game is presented to a wider audience.

One impression that I had is also that all these bits and pieces of detail that players add to the scenes risk to break the flow of narration. I like the idea of  "adding negative details so that you can gain influence to steer the narration towards the direction you prefer", but I would like to see it work really smoothly. Good rules must not "get in the way" and I saw them "get in the way" instead. I prefer a gameplay that goes like "Okay, this is the opposition we find <insert narration>. Let us try to overcome it <roll> Okay, we did/botched it". This is not what Tactical Ops offered us. At least in this initial playtest.

Bottom of the line: I think that Hasimir can still hammer a good game out of these rules - probably by making them simpler - but this goal is still to achieve. In any case, everyone felt we needed a bit more playtest time in order to give a definitive response. The point, Alessandro, is that you ought to provide more incentives to delve into the subtleties of the system enough to master it.

[Hasimir]

First of all, a huge THANKS!
I know of people playing the game around the world, but thus far no one took the time to produce an actual play.
So, again, thanks!

A few questions:

1) how much time (give or take) was spent playing the Action phase?

2) how many Scenes have been played during the Action phase?
from your report it would seem just one... is that correct?

3) what exactly was tagged as Obstacle(s) in that one Scene?
can you elaborate more on this passage?

We realize there are two obstacles (the guards and the door) and the deceitful guy goes for the guards in order to distract them and help me snatch one of the cards. As we are not very skilled with the rules the distraction attempt fails.

[RosenMcStern]

Yes, we played one single Action scene, and it lasted about one hour, one hour and a half.

The obstacles were the close door (details: it has a smartcard-based lock, it is transparent, and another detail I cannot remember) and the two guards (details: they are brutal, they have to protect the door, they have a card that could or could not be the correct one for the door).

Was it possible to avoid the double ostacle complication?

[Hasimir]

mmm... your report looks very strange to me :\

First of all, Scenes are meant to be very brief.
They mechanically end as soon as the Location or Cast change, or right after a Challenge ends.

From your description I have to assume your two characters stayed in front of a locked door, with guards harassing them, for about 90 minutes of real time ... doing what exactly?
How did you (Players) spend so much time?
What were you doing at the table?

We realize there are two obstacles...

What do you mean by "we realize"?
I ask because from your description I get the feeling something may have been played out wrong at this stage.

If a door is closed and guards are looming nearby such things are NOT Obstacles per se.
Any PC may just say "I pick the lock" and the door will open because your PC is just that good.
Only if someone says "But wait! This door is an Obstacle!" cashing-in the +1Influence will the door actually BE an Obstacle.
THEN if your PC insists on interacting with the door you will be in a Challenge and dice will be rolled...

Did things happen like that?

the deceitful guy goes for the guards in order to distract them and help me snatch one of the cards. As we are not very skilled with the rules the distraction attempt fails

Can you elaborate?
How does it fail?
In-Fiction the deceitful guy goes up to the guards looking all innocent and helpful and chats them up... Out-Fiction its Player gaters his dice pool and rolls... and what happens?
Did he get less HITs than the Obstacle's Difficulty?
If yes, what Soft Opposition effect was activated? ...how did it translate In-Fiction?
Or did he get no HITs at all?
Then what Hard Opposition effect was activated? ...how did it translate In-Fiction?
And what was your hacker guy doing in the meantime?

(again, I'm very buffled at how this brief chain of actions could have lasted for 90 minutes at the table, even considering the thing when you say "maybe we're doing it wrong, let's reset the Challange" ... WHAT took you so long? what were you discussing/debating/describing?)

. . .

On a side-note I see that the Details listed for the door should be more or less OK, but those for the guards look wrong:

two guards (details: they are brutal, they have to protect the door, they have a card that could or could not be the correct one for the door)

How did your PCs knew the guards were "brutal"?
Hadn't they just saw them and chatted with them?
Or was it their previous knowledge from past scuffs with them? (in this case, did some Player ACTUALLY TELL this to the other Players?)

"I have to protect this door" doesn't look like an advantage in favor of the guards in regard of the specific situation ... aren't they supposed to ALWAYS keep EVERYTHING away from inmate hands? Especially near the director's office?

"I have a keycard" is not an advantage for the guards against you, and can only be injected in the game if such keycard was SEEN by one of the PCs ... then, if this were the case, that would actually be a detail in the PC's favour and should have been determined either by Asking a Question or by paying 2Influence to directly set such a positive Detail.

[RosenMcStern]

I ask because from your description I get the feeling something may have been played out wrong at this stage.

This is probably true.

If a door is closed and guards are looming nearby such things are NOT Obstacles per se.
Any PC may just say "I pick the lock" and the door will open because your PC is just that good.
Only if someone says "But wait! This door is an Obstacle!" cashing-in the +1Influence will the door actually BE an Obstacle.

Which is what happened. I cannot remember whether they got this Influence, but Rafu and Klaus stated it sounded plausible to them that the door would not "give in" so easily, and it was probably guarded.

(again, I'm very buffled at how this brief chain of actions could have lasted for 90 minutes at the table, even considering the thing when you say "maybe we're doing it wrong, let's reset the Challange" ... WHAT took you so long? what were you discussing/debating/describing?)

We were mainly struggling with the rules and what and when we could add. The system sounded a bit complicate to us. Being used to playing HeroQuest, such conflicts do not last that long in that system, and you still have an opportunity to introduce a lot of relevant details in the resolution procedure.

How did your PCs knew the guards were "brutal"?
Hadn't they just saw them and chatted with them?
Or was it their previous knowledge from past scuffs with them? (in this case, did some Player ACTUALLY TELL this to the other Players?)

This. We assumed it was common knowledge. Does this violate the "Only what you can perceive" rule?

"I have to protect this door" doesn't look like an advantage in favor of the guards in regard of the specific situation ... aren't they supposed to ALWAYS keep EVERYTHING away from inmate hands? Especially near the director's office?

"I have a keycard" is not an advantage for the guards against you, and can only be injected in the game if such keycard was SEEN by one of the PCs ... then, if this were the case, that would actually be a detail in the PC's favour and should have been determined either by Asking a Question or by paying 2Influence to directly set such a positive Detail.

Yeah, this sounds correct. We probably messed up everything because of the double obstacle.

[Hasimir]

Ok, but I would like to have more details on this elements, please :)


1) Failure

the deceitful guy goes for the guards in order to distract them and help me snatch one of the cards. As we are not very skilled with the rules the distraction attempt fails

Can you elaborate?
How does it fail?
In-Fiction the deceitful guy goes up to the guards looking all innocent and helpful and chats them up... Out-Fiction its Player gaters his dice pool and rolls... and what happens?
Did he get less HITs than the Obstacle's Difficulty?
If yes, what Soft Opposition effect was activated? ...how did it translate In-Fiction?
Or did he get no HITs at all?
Then what Hard Opposition effect was activated? ...how did it translate In-Fiction?
And what was your hacker guy doing in the meantime?

2) Brutal Guards
Players can only narrate things their PCs are perceiving RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW.
Also, the only "true reality" is what has been PLAYED at the table.

So a Player can not say "this guard is a racist" just because.
No PC can perceive what goes on inside the head of an NPC, his mood, his thoughts, his personality.
But you can say something like "the guards wears, almost hidden under the uniform, a pin with a racist symbol/joke/motto on it".
Or maybe "my PC knows this guard, he's a fucking racist".

So you are free to contribute with either new details perceived right here&now, or with new info coming from your PC's personal backstory.
The point is: someone has to EXPLAIN to the table how/why any one Detail pops into play.

This roots firmly all the fiction in a strictly PoV perspective.
So if a Player just says "the guards are brutal" and you just roll with it, silently assuming it is common knowledge, it is WRONG.
Instead you did good with your "brutal guards" as long as someone provided an explanation as to how any of your PCs knew the guards were brutal.


3) Multiple Obstacles
You actually can play it both ways.
Sticking to the fiction you provided: you pick-pocket the guards while your friend talks them away from you.
Your PC pick-pocketing the keycards from the guards looks like a more than reasonable way to work towards solving the Door obstacle.
But I for one can't see a way in which such action may make the guards go away, or help your friend to make them go away.
So if this is what your PC does in the fiction, you as a Player can only roll for SUCCESS against the Door obstacle.
(and you will be rolling one of your Indirect MODEs, as you are interacting with the guards instead of the Door)

In the meantime your talkative pal could roll for SUCCESS against the Guards obstacle by smart-talking them away from you.
(this instead would be, usually, a Direct MODE roll)

Or... he could roll for SUPPORT as distracting the guards is definitely helpful for your pick-pocketing attempt.
Since HE is supporting YOU, and you are acting toward the Door obstacle, his help is meant as "against the door" -- so by talking to the guards he is acting in an Indirect way -- adding his HITs to your next roll.

Does this clarify a bit the situation? :)

[Hasimir]

PS:

Being used to playing HeroQuest, such conflicts do not last that long in that system, and you still have an opportunity to introduce a lot of relevant details in the resolution procedure.

Such conflicts don't last that long in TOps either, but as I understand it you ended up doing a lot of page-flipping through the rules ... I'll have to whip Patrick for not being better prepared XD