In Defiance players roleplay insurrectionists who have their own fortes. The equivalent in D&D would be players roleplaying adventurers who have their own classes. There are five fortes that players can chooses from: firebrand, heretic, infiltrator, renegade, saboteur. The firebrand gets to be the mouthpiece of the insurrectionists. Renegades fight; infiltrators sneak,cheat and steal; and heretics pray for miracles. In theory a saboteur should do the following:

Saboteurs use destruction and mayhem to advance their cabal’s cause. Whether destroying buildings, alliances or plans, saboteurs are the strategists of a cabal. Many cabals owe their continued existence to saboteurs who have hindered the plans of corrupt authorities.

In practice, however, it doesn't work out that way. Firebrands, renegades and infiltrators get to shine because they're regularly presented with challenges which can be resolved in ways appropriate to their particular fortes. Heretics less so, but because they're the only insurrectionists that can pray for miracles, it tends to balance things out.

I'm stuck on how to make saboteurs more enjoyable to play and I'm even considering abandoning the forte altogether. I want to keep sabotuers in the game, and I have a vague idea that like heretics, they should be able to do something unique rather than simply be better at doing certain things. As with heretics in my game, I don't want the players of saboteurs to have to pay or be penalized for doing what they're supposed to do, they should be rewarded, i.e. players are rewarded for their heretic praying for miracles.

A little background on the game itself: the game uses a system of drawing coloured beads to determine the outcome of challenges. They win influence points which can be used to change the number of beads they draw during a challenge. Players narrate the outcome of their insurrectionist's challenges.

Any advice?

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

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.

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

Vordark wrote:
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 wrote:
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 wrote:

MJGraham wrote:
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".

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.

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.

Actually the saboteur, to me, sounds like the most intriguing “forte” of the bunch.  But if I was playing a saboteur, the main thing I’d need to make the game enjoyable would be a plethora of targets.

Without knowing your game system it’s hard to tell if something in the design is hindering the viability of the forte.  Does the player get to suggest possible targets? Does the GM present an array of potential "bombing" sites? 

Also, how much impact does sabotage have on the powers that be?  If I decide to take down a bridge and wipe out a convoy of supplies, does this have some sort of dramatic impact later on? Do I gain some sort of “insurrection points” that can be used later to do cool stuff or save my ass?

I would think that most of the covert “defiance” activity CENTERS on the saboteur and his actions.  The saboteur wants to blow up a radio tower that coordinates troops (or a television station broadcasting state propaganda).  The infiltrator scouts the area, the firebrand causes a diversion with his demagoguery, the renegade provides muscle to overcome any guards, while the heretic…um, prays? Anyway, the whole thing hinges on the saboteur’s ability to pick the target and figure out the best weapon (a bomb, an EMP pulse, a broadcast of seditious propaganda, whatever) to use.

Is the saboteur a kit-basher/bomb-maker?  Does the saboteur have contacts for getting illicit supplies and/or intel?  Scenes of bomb-making and info gathering can give the saboteur chances to “shine” in your game.

If you’re already including this kind of stuff in your game design (i.e. “stuff for the saboteur to do”), then the issue may be with your play-tester.  Consider that your other fortes all have “D&D-equivalent” character classes that a player might be used to: Renegade = fighter, Infiltrator = thief, Heretic = cleric, Firebrand = bardy-type.  But there’s really no “normal” equivalent of a saboteur.  Most adventure parties (especially D20 types) are designed for more “direct action” not plotting ways of disrupting and causing mayhem. The saboteur forte may require a learning curve and/or a particular type of “big picture” player.

As a side note: if the PCs “defiance” in your game centers around religious convictions (as seems to be indicated by the Heretic forte) why not brand ALL the players “Heretics” and give them all minor miracles they can pray for (within their own spheres of influence). That cuts out any future questions of “who has to play the side-lined miracle dude.” What brings the party together is their shared convictions and their touch with the Divine…however that manifests!

Viva la Revolution!

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.

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.