[Defiance] How can I make sabotage fun?

[MJGraham]

[Noclue]

Why aren't Saboteurs getting more chances to commit sabotage during play?

[Vordark]

I am very tired, so if this idea sucks or is incoherent it's not my fault.

You could generalize Saboteurs to act as a "foil" to other character's abilities, and not have them being just about blowing things up.  Give them the ability to interrupt other character's abilities, dish out penalties or otherwise deny the enemy the ability to use their skills effectively.

In general, I think that whatever the average scene in your game is going to "be about" (whether combat, intrigue or what not) you have to give each forte a role in it, in addition to whatever cool things they are specialized for outside of it.  If each forte can't contribute, in their own way, to the core activity the group is going to be engaged in, they simply become less viable.

[MJGraham]

Why aren't Saboteurs getting more chances to commit sabotage during play?

My guess would be that the players running saboteurs either forget to do it or don't want to do it that often. In a typical four to six session game, one act of sabotage might be committed and even then it is as likely to be committed by a renegade, heretic, infiltrator or firebrand as it is to be committed by a saboteur. I feel that I need to make sabotage a more attractive and rewarding part of the game, but I'm not sure how I will do it.

I am very tired, so if this idea sucks or is incoherent it's not my fault.

You could generalize Saboteurs to act as a "foil" to other character's abilities, and not have them being just about blowing things up.  Give them the ability to interrupt other character's abilities, dish out penalties or otherwise deny the enemy the ability to use their skills effectively.

In general, I think that whatever the average scene in your game is going to "be about" (whether combat, intrigue or what not) you have to give each forte a role in it, in addition to whatever cool things they are specialized for outside of it.  If each forte can't contribute, in their own way, to the core activity the group is going to be engaged in, they simply become less viable.

It is a good idea. The only problem is that players don't compete with one another, they work together for the sake of the story.

[Vordark]

It is a good idea. The only problem is that players don't compete with one another, they work together for the sake of the story.

Ah, by "other characters" I mean "the bad guys".

[MJGraham]

It is a good idea. The only problem is that players don't compete with one another, they work together for the sake of the story.

Ah, by "other characters" I mean "the bad guys".

I see what you mean now. The only characters that take challenges and have abilities are insurrectionists. E.g if a "bad guy" attempts to strike an insurrectionist, the insurrectionist must avoid the blow, but if an insurrectionist attempts to strike a bad guy, the bad guy doesn't have to avoid the blow.

[DWeird]

If saboteurs are strategists, and not mere bomb-men, allow them to do strategy stuff.

This could mean allowing them to establish certain facts in-fiction (the supports of that building are wobbly, the floors creak here here and here, there's a peephole in that there master bedroom, etc...) that characters with different fortes could then exploit. Sneaky types make use of peephole's, fighty types hack away at the supports, that sort of thing.


It might also help to ramp the opposition level way, way, way up to the point where "regular" team effort just wouldn't cut it (which'd be keeping with the spirit of things, if the title o' the game is any indication). This might shift the flow of the game less from individual encounters and more towards playing [with] the circumstances presented. Blowing up weapon warehouses, means of transport or communication, shaping the landscape to open up/close down movement, that sort of thing.

[Callan S.]

It might help if they have a certain retcon powers. Like if the group chooses a certain building to assault, the sabatuer already knew they'd do that and was in there a week ago, working on 'stuff' (and indeed, who knows how many buildings the sabatuer rigs 'just in case we wanna go there'). Of course the player of the sabatour didn't know, but with retcon powers he can say his character did. He can then establish facts by some mechanic, like DWeird talks about.

[LandonSuffered]

i]targets<CENTERS <As a side note:CENTERS <As a side note:

[JoyWriter]

I agree with the story power idea, although I don't think the saboteur should have "got there earlier", surely that is the infiltrators job. Part of your problem is that they are pretty much all saboteurs, so the character class named that must do something out of the ordinary. I think that "knowing what's going on" is a pretty valuable job, making the saboteur almost like the intel guy, who knows where the supplies will be so we can nick them etc. The saboteur and the GM then would collaborate to frame the challenge, both at first and as it progresses. So adding quest hooks is not a problem, because one of the players does it with you. The only difference is that their intel could be wonky, whereas the bad stuff or good stuff you say is always true, so when it comes to the point where they could check if they are right, then they roll. Are there any ways to save up power for certain roles? If so I can just imagine someone going "This is it this time guys, I've really got it" etc. Could add a sort of amusing effect if you lower the power levels, or be really dramatic as they pull out some crucial info at the last minute of a siege, and drop half the building on the people coming in to get you.

[MJGraham]

Thank for all the advice. Rather than allowing saboteur to do more, I've decided to give the players with saboteurs more control over the story to reflect their characters planning and strategizing.