Hi all

I've been going big on "sub-systems" recently in my game - going through the different encounter types that FFG have provided us (including slicing encounters, chase encounters, dog-fighting rules, etc.), rejigging some and also designing some new ones.

I'm curious about the idea of Stealth Encounters. Although there's been a lot of adventures that include stealth elements, there hasn't really been anything codified about Stealth usage. For example, if you're sneaking into a building (a fairly standard "Stealth Encounter") do you have to take a Stealth check to get past every single NPC? What if you run into the same NPC twice - do you have to retake the check? What other actions can be taken as part of a Stealth encounter other than just "hide"? Are there any "Stealth Manoeuvres", and if so, what could those be? Is there a mechanic that can be used to factor in noise levels, or guard alertness?

My instinct is that you could design something similar to Chase Encounters - both types of encounters are about trying to get from A to B (by implication, at least), both types of encounters are explicitly about avoiding combat, and both types of encounters require two opposing parties (unlike, say, environmental encounters, which don't require actual enemies). I just wondered whether anyone had any other ideas as to what could work, and what needs to be considered, in creating some rules for Stealth Encounters.

(BTW: I'm looking at the crunchy, base mechanics here. I'm aware that "as the plot demands" is an option, and perhaps the preferred one; I'm just curious to see if there's anything that can be done in this space.)

Thanks in advance.

You could build an initial stealth "threshold" of sorts. Have 3 separate areas that contribute to the threshold: equipment (what people have on), technique (what stealth/skulduggery skills people have), circumstance (environmental conditions and what not). Hostile encounters will continually "degrade" the threshold by their vigilance checks and such, in a linear progression. This way, if a team has to infiltrate something like 8 different areas, the party may have enough "threshold" to pass a few areas no problem but further in things may get dicey and could get discovered part way into wherever the infiltration is happening.

I would have various layers of challenges for them to stealth through. What is in the situation can vary, but let's say floor 1 is the following:

1 NPC Minion guard, and a few cameras. Also some locked doors here and there, making avenues of approach and infiltration minimal. Still, not terribly hard for someone who is highly skilled at infiltration. So, I'd probably make that a 2 difficulty, with a couple setback dice. The setback would be described as "with the moving cameras, and the open area, there are lots of line of sight angles, making your approach difficult. If the PC is really good at stealth, he will likely be able to ignore most, if not all of the setback dice. "This is just the main lobby of this business! I've crept into better!" Rolls dice, succeeds. He then makes it through Floor 1. How is up to the PC to describe, but would be colored by the skill used. If stealth was used, they did lots of sneakin' and creepin', and perhaps slipped through an interior door as an NPC walked through it. If they used Skullduggery, i'd say they jimmied the lock, or used a data scrambler (or whatever), to bypass the cameras and such, and moved through during the downtime on the surveillance.

Floor 2:
You could go either with harder checks, or easier checks, as there are some schools of thought of "once you're inside, few people even question why you're there" But they continue to do skill checks to get through, perhaps with some Perception checks tossed in there to allow for "alternate routes". I'd probably have a few hidden paths they could spot, and if so, using those routes would make the check much easier. They'd still have to make the check to sneak through, but perhaps with a downgraded difficulty, or a reduced difficulty. Because they found that ventilation shaft behind the vending machine, and their cybernetic implants allow them to pick up the machine and sneak behind it, replacing it as if they weren't there. This would still all boil down to a simple dice roll, but you would describe it different than if they didn't bother to do a Perception check, or failed it.

Basically I'd do stuff like that. Just assign some difficulty that you feel is appropriate, and state that the difficulty is because of the following factors (Personnel, cameras, sensors/detectors, etc).

I'd use different difficulties for different skills. Perhaps floor one has a terminal that can shut down the cameras so that floor is DD with computers but it is DDSS with stealth, etc.

In my recent game the Infiltrator PC was shadowing some smugglers in a space station. I used the "Crowd" table from Endless Vigil and the Spend Advantages etc worked really well!

10 hours ago, Snickett said:

You could build an initial stealth "threshold" of sorts. Have 3 separate areas that contribute to the threshold: equipment (what people have on), technique (what stealth/skulduggery skills people have), circumstance (environmental conditions and what not). Hostile encounters will continually "degrade" the threshold by their vigilance checks and such, in a linear progression. This way, if a team has to infiltrate something like 8 different areas, the party may have enough "threshold" to pass a few areas no problem but further in things may get dicey and could get discovered part way into wherever the infiltration is happening.

That's an interesting idea, although I feel that's probably a few too many things to keep track of and keep the game flowing. Also I'm not clear - what happens if they exceed the threshold?

10 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

1 NPC Minion guard, and a few cameras. Also some locked doors here and there, making avenues of approach and infiltration minimal. Still, not terribly hard for someone who is highly skilled at infiltration. So, I'd probably make that a 2 difficulty, with a couple setback dice.

1

You'd just stick a base difficulty on it rather than making it Opposed? Although I guess if the guard is a single minion he's probably only generating 1-2 purple anyway.

Also, would you just include all these things in a single check? I like the idea of streamlining it, but I also feel like I'm robbing my players a bit there of moments when they can actually do something.

2 hours ago, Ahrimon said:

I'd use different difficulties for different skills. Perhaps floor one has a terminal that can shut down the cameras so that floor is DD with computers but it is DDSS with stealth, etc.

I'm not sure I'd let anyone shut down a camera with Stealth - that seems not what the skill was designed to do at all.

2 hours ago, Andreievitch said:

In my recent game the Infiltrator PC was shadowing some smugglers in a space station. I used the "Crowd" table from Endless Vigil and the Spend Advantages etc worked really well!

Thanks, I'll take a look at it. (Got that book somewhere).

2 hours ago, edwardavern said:

You'd just stick a base difficulty on it rather than making it Opposed? Although I guess if the guard is a single minion he's probably only generating 1-2 purple anyway.

Also, would you just include all these things in a single check? I like the idea of streamlining it, but I also feel like I'm robbing my players a bit there of moments when they can actually do something.

Generally minions don't get opposed checks. That's usually reserved for Rivals and Nemesises and PC's. So no I wouldn't make it an opposed check. The fact that some of the obstacles are living creatures is just for flavor. In the end, they are simply factors in a difficulty check.

As to lumping them together, yes I would make it a single check. But there's nothing saying the PC can't try and do other checks along the way to make the rolls easier. Like my example of a Perception check to find an easier route. The "easier" part would be reduction of the negative dice pool in some way. But there's nothing stopping someone with say, a good Computers skill from slicing the network, and disabling all the cameras. Which would make the dice roll easier, by removing the negative dice related to the cameras. You asked for a Stealth encounter, which I assumed meant you were mostly focusing on the actual Stealth skill in these examples.

This type of encounter is no different than any other type, that is a combination of multiple factors. For example, a climbing check might be 3 difficulty dice, and 2 setback. The setback are due to things like weather, the lack of good handholds, etc. Sure you could make a roll for each of these factors for some reason, but that is unnecessarily complicated, and unfair to the player. In the end, it's one roll. A stealth roll shouldn't be any different. I would still have multiple stages for the overall infiltration, unless it's a small facility. Sneaking into a 1 room gas station for example would only take one check at my table. Sneaking into an Imperial outpost with multiple floors would take more.

And again, the PC can do other things along the way to make their checks easier. Maybe they knock out a guard, and steal the uniform, and do a skullduggery roll to make a disguise. Well now the next check can be easier, because they now "look the part". Or they use Athletics/Coordination to climb up into the ventilation systems, and crawl around, avoiding a lot of stuff. There are plenty of ways for the PC to circumvent the security, if the player is clever enough to try them. But it should still just be one roll for each challenge/encounter.

35 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

But it should still just be one roll for each challenge/encounter.

I think you and I have a different definition of "encounter". For me, an encounter can be a single check, but is more commonly multiple checks (as with Combat Encounters, Slicing Encounters and Chase Encounters, as per RAW).

5 minutes ago, edwardavern said:

I think you and I have a different definition of "encounter". For me, an encounter can be a single check, but is more commonly multiple checks (as with Combat Encounters, Slicing Encounters and Chase Encounters, as per RAW).

Well as I said, I'm assuming there will be multiple levels to this place the person is sneaking into. Each floor would be a different check. But whatever, do what you want. I've given my opinion on it, take the advice or not.

45 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Generally minions don't get opposed checks. That's usually reserved for Rivals and Nemesises and PC's. [...]

This is suggested for opposing Force powers, but in general, I would disagree; else giving a minions things like perception and Discipline as a group skill is a waste. In my games, minions still oppose a stealth check.

2 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

Well as I said, I'm assuming there will be multiple levels to this place the person is sneaking into. Each floor would be a different check. But whatever, do what you want. I've given my opinion on it, take the advice or not.

I seem to have given offence. My apologies - it was not my intent; I was simply trying to clarify my position.

2 hours ago, kaosoe said:

This is suggested for opposing Force powers, but in general, I would disagree; else giving a minions things like perception and Discipline as a group skill is a waste. In my games, minions still oppose a stealth check.

Absolutely.

Although...now I'm wondering about the wisdom of making Stealth checks opposed at all...

So, here's my process. The whole debate about whether Stealth or Perception should be the active check (and the issues regarding nerfing talents pertaining to those skills) is based around the idea that they are opposed, which is called out in the RAW (although, point of interest, it is qualified in the CR with the words "often" and "typically", rather than "always").

But what if, instead, the difficulty were determined by the environment. It would be very easy to have a 5-step scale of environmental conditions, ranging from "perfect visibility, no noise" to "pitch black, pouring with rain, someone's operating a pneumatic drill 4 feet away", where the difficulty of Stealth checks decreased as the conditions worsened, and the difficulty of Perception checks increased as they worsened.

Then...you break that down into turns, somehow...although now you're doubling the number of checks...OK, not gonna lie, I started writing before I thought this through. Clearly this still needs some work...

I give boost dice (or setback) for Stealth checks based on conditions.

7 hours ago, edwardavern said:

I'm not sure I'd let anyone shut down a camera with Stealth - that seems not what the skill was designed to do at all.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that with computers you pass the floor by disabling the cameras. Or with stealth you could pass the floor at a different difficulty. I was trying to say that I would allow the players to pick a skill for each floor and each skill would have it's own difficulty.

16 hours ago, Ahrimon said:

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant that with computers you pass the floor by disabling the cameras. Or with stealth you could pass the floor at a different difficulty. I was trying to say that I would allow the players to pick a skill for each floor and each skill would have it's own difficulty.

Ah, I see. That does make more sense!

Actually, looking at it, Stealth is really under-represented in the game. Just looking for any talents that relate to Stealth, and I can only count 4 - Master of Shadows, Natural Rogue, Sleight of Mind, and Stalker. Compare that to 15 talents relating to Charm, for example.

Having said that, I suppose the Spy book, when it comes out, may well have some more on this.

In regards to the actual hiding I would break it down into tasks, and that you would roll a stealth check if that party had a reasonable chance of running into an NPC. I would generally roll the highest check vs the highest stealth (Increasing the difficulty of the check by one for every additional person the sneaker would try and slip past)

Lets say, your looking to sneak into the engine room of grunts-R-us and lets assume they are not expecting trouble. You would expect there to be guards and engineers, I would most likely roll one for the guards and use the despairs to "narrative get spotted by one of the engineers who, somewhat dumbfounded, raises his hand towards you; yet due to the swift pace your setting he doesn't get much more then a glimpse before you are ready to move on." and place the interesting situation in the players hands; do they attempt to reason with the man? DO they outright murder him? Does he beat their vigence check and succeed? Or is he not entirely sure what he/she saw and decides to report this strange finding to the guards, who are now expecting trouble and raise their perception/vig by 1. This isn't he same as calling a base wide alert that would fail the mission, it's just a complication that the guards are forced to observe.

Hi all

So, further to this post a few months ago, I've been tinkering with something for a little while. Trying to come up with something that is relatively streamlined, accounts for the majority of situations, and uses a variety of skills while placing a premium on Stealth. I'd be interested to know what people think.

Quote

Stealth Encounters

A Stealth Encounter is defined as any encounter in which the PCs are attempting to do something without being noticed by an NPC (or vice versa). The encounter lasts for as long as both parties are present, and for as long as the PCs remain hidden; if either party leaves or is killed, or if the PCs are all discovered, the encounter ends.

Stealth Check

At the beginning of the encounter (i.e. as soon as the PCs and NPCs are present in the same space) the PCs must make an Opposed Stealth vs Vigilance check. This check should be a group check, using the lowest Agility and Stealth scores available to the PCs, and the difficulty should be determined by the highest Willpower and Vigilance scores available to the NPCs. If this check fails, the NPC is alerted to the PCs’ presence – see “Failure & Search” below.

Stealth Modifiers

The following elements may affect the Stealth dice pool:

• If visibility is poor (including light levels, cover, presence of fog or mist, etc.) the PCs may add up to 3 Boost Dice to their Stealth check. However, if visibility is exceptionally good, the PCs’ check may suffer up to 3 Setback Dice .
• If there is a lot of noise to cover up the sounds of the PCs’ moving, the PCs may add up to 2 Boost Dice to their check. However, if the environment is especially quiet, their check may suffer up to 2 Setback Dice .
• If the PCs are at long or extreme range from the NPCs, then their Stealth check may receive 1 or 2 Boost Dice , respectively. However, if the PCs are at short or engaged range, they must add 1 or 2 Setback Dice to their check, respectively.
• If the NPCs are unalert or distracted, the PCs may add 1 Boost Die to their check. If, however, the PCs are particularly alert and prepared, the PCs must add 1 Setback Die to their check.

Success

If the check succeeds, count the number of uncancelled Successes on the check. For the remainder of the encounter, the PCs may attempt other actions as normal; however, if at any point they roll a Despair, or number of Threat greater than the number of uncancelled Successes on the encounter’s Stealth check, the NPCs are alerted. Certain actions or manoeuvres may add automatic Threat if the GM determines that they are inherently noisy, or may even be loud/obvious enough to automatically alert the NPCs (e.g. firing an unsilenced weapon).

Ambush

If the PCs remain undetected, they may ambush the NPCs. This begins a combat encounter, and the GM should have all characters roll for initiative. The PCs must use Cool for this check, while the NPCs must use Vigilance . In addition, the NPCs must add a number of Difficulty Dice to their initiative dice pool equal to the number of uncancelled Successes rolled on the PCs’ Stealth check.

Failure & Search

If the PCs fail their Stealth check, or roll too many Threat during the encounter, the NPCs are alerted. However, this does not mean they know exactly where the PCs are – it means they know that somebody is there and are now actively looking for them.

The game now enters structured play; the GM should have all characters roll for initiative (with all character using the Cool skill).

As in combat, the PCs may attempt one action and up to two manoeuvres during their turn. They are assumed to remain hidden unless they roll 2 Threat or more on any roll (irrespective of the results of the Stealth roll), or until they perform an action that the GM deems to be suitably obvious. At this point they are considered to be discovered – the NPCs know where they are and can engage them in combat if they desire.

The NPCs may also make one action and up to two manoeuvres during their turn, as normal. For their action, they may attempt to locate the PCs by make an Opposed Perception vs Stealth check. If successful, the NPCs discover a number of PCs equal to the number of uncancelled Successes rolled – the GM selects which PCs based on the circumstances. Alternatively, the NPCs may make any number of other actions and manoeuvres appropriate to the situation, including activating lights, calling for backup, or running away.

Search Modifiers

The Search Modifiers are the same as the Stealth Modifiers, only reversed (so the NPCs gain 1 Boost Die on their Perception checks where the PCs would have suffered 1 Setback Die on their Stealth checks).

Obviously the above assumed that the PCs are the ones trying to sneak past the NPCs. In theory, there's no reason this couldn't work in reverse, although with the likely addition that the players, noticing that the GM is rolling a few dice and not telling anyone what it's for, might start making a few Perception checks without any in-game motivation to do so. Which is fine.

• If visibility is poor (including light levels, cover, presence of fog or mist, etc.) the PCs may add up to 3 Boost Dice to their Stealth check. However, if visibility is exceptionally good, the PCs’ check may suffer up to 3 Setback Dice .
• If there is a lot of noise to cover up the sounds of the PCs’ moving, the PCs may add up to 2 Boost Dice to their check. However, if the environment is especially quiet, their check may suffer up to 2 Setback Dice .
• If the PCs are at long or extreme range from the NPCs, then their Stealth check may receive 1 or 2 Boost Dice , respectively. However, if the PCs are at short or engaged range, they must add 1 or 2 Setback Dice to their check, respectively.

These are all already covered under environmental factors for encounters. Visibility adds setbacks to the defender, not boosts to the infiltrator. The same goes for sound. Distance should not receive any form of augmentation, because those are covered by the environmentals in practice.

Ambush

If the PCs remain undetected, they may ambush the NPCs. This begins a combat encounter, and the GM should have all characters roll for initiative. The PCs must use Cool for this check, while the NPCs must use Vigilance . In addition, the NPCs must add a number of Difficulty Dice to their initiative dice pool equal to the number of uncancelled Successes rolled on the PCs’ Stealth check.

I believe the book discusses surprise as being a cool check as you have said. Adding difficulty dice to defenders would make something already difficult harder unnecessarily. Why not just use a setback if you absolutely feel the need to add more dice?


As for failure, why complicate the system? There are already so many ways to boost, upgrade and increase your stealth that failure should just be failure. Enter the structured time as you say, and let them decide whether to flee or not.

All in all, I can appreciate what you would like to accomplish, but there is already an implicit system in place to run an encounter for stealth. Any time you start adding/subtract dice, you fundamentally change aspects and values of character talents.

2 hours ago, edwardavern said:

So, further to this post a few months ago, I've been tinkering with something for a little while.

I think trying to codify this leads to more problems, because every situation will be different. It could be one PC vs one guard/sensor, in which case a single opposed roll is fine. Or it could be one PC vs a series of guards and/or sensors, in which case a it could be treated like a chase, where a single failure doesn't necessarily derail the situation it just means the NPCs close in. Or it could be multiple PCs vs guards/sensors, in which case the worst stealther gets assisted by the best...etc.

I think the general rule of thumb is it's an opposed roll, but if you want more than that, you'd be better served designing the Stealth requirements for each encounter separately. What you've outlined above is really very specific to a group of PCs getting through a well guarded location that also happens to be littered with places to hide. But you've limited it to using only Stealth. Instead, you could easily use the chase mechanic (as you noted above) where, instead of range bands, the PCs and NPCs start the encounter "X units from discovery". Success increases that to X+1 (maybe they need to get to Y to get clear), and failure decreases it to X-1 (where some threshold Z means NPCs are alert instead of passive, and zero is discovery). But the more important part is then you can tailor it to the location. If it's in a jungle, you don't have to only use Stealth, somebody might be able to use Survival instead. If it's in a military installation, you could use Knowledge Warfare. If it's in the slums you could use Streetwise or Knowledge Underworld. This allows more PCs to bring some expertise to the mix rather than the whole encounter resting on the clumsiness of the Diplomat.

Anyway, I think it's generally better to custom tailor stealth encounters rather than rely on one mechanic.

Edit: forgot to add, one pitfall in mechanics like these is that failure leads to setback which leads to more failure (or conversely, success leads to boost which leads to more success). This is pretty normal, but it's important not to pile on too much, otherwise you simply guarantee a downward or upward spiral.

Quote

These are all already covered under environmental factors for encounters. Visibility adds setbacks to the defender, not boosts to the infiltrator. The same goes for sound. Distance should not receive any form of augmentation, because those are covered by the environmentals in practice.

2

So, ignoring the fact that I'm clearly not trying to stick to RAW here, the CR states " Alternatively, it [environmental concealment] adds a number of Boost Dice equal to "dice added" entry to any Stealth checks made by a character with concealment. " Which, in a stealth-oriented encounter where I'm looking to put the onus on the infiltrators, seems preferable to me.

As for sound and distance, I like to separate them out in my mind because they seem unconnected. My PCs might be trying to sneak across a flat, open plain of short grass in broad daylight while wearing luminous clothing, but if they're doing it at 2km away I feel they should probably get some sort of benefit for that.

Quote

I believe the book discusses surprise as being a cool check as you have said. Adding difficulty dice to defenders would make something already difficult harder unnecessarily. Why not just use a setback if you absolutely feel the need to add more dice?

This isn't exactly a revolutionary houserule - you'll find it suggested on a dozen or more threads on this forum, particularly those threads discussing ambushes, surprise attacks, and the like - but in any case I'm not convinced by your premise. How is a cool check "already difficult"?

Quote

As for failure, why complicate the system? There are already so many ways to boost, upgrade and increase your stealth that failure should just be failure. Enter the structured time as you say, and let them decide whether to flee or not.

1

This is a valid question, and I may not have really explained it very well in my OP back in May. The bottom line is that I want to run Stealth encounters that are more than just pass/fail a single check. I'm thinking of those encounters from computer games like Splinter Cell , Thief II , some of the Batman games, etc., where a Stealth encounter is an actual encounter, not just "you pass your Stealth check" or "you fail your Stealth check". This way, a high Stealth score provides likely success without losing tension throughout the encounter, while falling at the first hurdle doesn't instantly end the encounter.

Quote

Any time you start adding/subtract dice, you fundamentally change aspects and values of character talents.

So I had a detailed look through the talents while I was tinkering with this. By initially putting the onus on the Stealth (when the infiltrators are completely undetected) and then switching it to Perception (as the NPCs start hunting them), talents that deal with those skills can both come into play.

4 minutes ago, whafrog said:

I think trying to codify this leads to more problems, because every situation will be different. It could be one PC vs one guard/sensor, in which case a single opposed roll is fine. Or it could be one PC vs a series of guards and/or sensors, in which case a it could be treated like a chase, where a single failure doesn't necessarily derail the situation it just means the NPCs close in. Or it could be multiple PCs vs guards/sensors, in which case the worst stealther gets assisted by the best...etc.

I think the general rule of thumb is it's an opposed roll, but if you want more than that, you'd be better served designing the Stealth requirements for each encounter separately. What you've outlined above is really very specific to a group of PCs getting through a well guarded location that also happens to be littered with places to hide. But you've limited it to using only Stealth. Instead, you could easily use the chase mechanic (as you noted above) where, instead of range bands, the PCs and NPCs start the encounter "X units from discovery". Success increases that to X+1 (maybe they need to get to Y to get clear), and failure decreases it to X-1 (where some threshold Z means NPCs are alert instead of passive, and zero is discovery). But the more important part is then you can tailor it to the location. If it's in a jungle, you don't have to only use Stealth, somebody might be able to use Survival instead. If it's in a military installation, you could use Knowledge Warfare. If it's in the slums you could use Streetwise or Knowledge Underworld. This allows more PCs to bring some expertise to the mix rather than the whole encounter resting on the clumsiness of the Diplomat.

Anyway, I think it's generally better to custom tailor stealth encounters rather than rely on one mechanic.

5

So...I agree with you. Especially about substituting other skills in for Stealth where necessary (Survival a great shout, also I think Streetwise could work in a "social stealth" sort of encounter). I admit that was left out of the rules I posted. Really, these rules (and I'll admit I did not make this clear) are the guidelines around which to build a stealth encounter - obviously in actuality each scenario will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. (To be honest, I didn't state this because I kind of thought it was a given...after all, just because we've got detailed combat rules doesn't mean combat encounters aren't all completely individual. Or should be, at least.)

With regards to the point that these rules are "specific to a group of PCs getting through a well guarded location that also happens to be littered with places to hide" .....yes. That's true. These are rules for Stealth Encounters, not for occasional uses of Stealth. They are specifically designed for heists, infiltrations, escapes, and the like. In this regard, they are much like the Slicing Encounter rules (which are designed specifically for hacking into defended computer systems), or the Sabaac rules (which are designed specifically for playing Sabaac) or, well...any other subsystem rules. Combat. Chases. Crafting. All provide a framework for a specific type of encounter, around which individual encounters can be built. That's what I was going for here.

Again, I apologise if some of this wasn't apparent from my earlier post. Thanks for the feedback.

2 minutes ago, edwardavern said:

These are rules for Stealth Encounters, not for occasional uses of Stealth. They are specifically designed for heists, infiltrations, escapes, and the like. In this regard, they are much like the Slicing Encounter rules (which are designed specifically for hacking into defended computer systems)...

I see your intent, I'm just not sure it's as valuable as things like Slicing Encounters. A slicing encounter can work because the entire context of the encounter takes place "inside" the computer, where slicing is the only method of interaction. Stealth has a lot more variables.

On a related note, and maybe this is just me, I don't really like to design encounters around a skill. I don't even design encounters around combat. Instead there are goals, and the PCs decide what skills to bring to bear. Slicing might be a bit different because it's such a narrow context, but a slicing encounter for a PC might take place simultaneously with a sabaac encounter for another PC simultaneously with a stealth encounter for another PC, with the results of each bleeding into the other, inside the larger encounter which is "get into the base". I think only slicing and sabaac are narrow enough to be codified.

26 minutes ago, whafrog said:

I see your intent, I'm just not sure it's as valuable as things like Slicing Encounters. A slicing encounter can work because the entire context of the encounter takes place "inside" the computer, where slicing is the only method of interaction. Stealth has a lot more variables.

On a related note, and maybe this is just me, I don't really like to design encounters around a skill. I don't even design encounters around combat. Instead there are goals, and the PCs decide what skills to bring to bear. Slicing might be a bit different because it's such a narrow context, but a slicing encounter for a PC might take place simultaneously with a sabaac encounter for another PC simultaneously with a stealth encounter for another PC, with the results of each bleeding into the other, inside the larger encounter which is "get into the base". I think only slicing and sabaac are narrow enough to be codified.

Again, I don't really disagree with you. I wouldn't ever design an encounter (as in, prep it beforehand) around a particular skill or methodology; I would, as you suggest, design a session/adventure with a PC-goal in mind. But then, during the game, my PCs will (hopefully) come up with a method. It might be combat-oriented ("storm the castle"), or socially-oriented ("arrange a meeting") or it might be stealth-oriented ("sneak in through the basement"). Or some other completely idiotic brilliant and creative method. At which point, I now have to run an encounter. If it's combat, great; rules already written. Social? Bit trickier to run (not a huge fan of the "Social Combat" rules). Stealth? Nothing except 1/2 a page of RAW on the skill, which basically says "use this for sneaking". No poodoo, Sherlock.

Now sure, I can (and have) run that sort of encounter free-form, improvising as I go, but to me there are a number of dangers to that, which orient around (a) failing to ensure that a variety of skills and talents are given space to operate and (b) a lack of continuity between repeated sessions. (As an example of the latter in another type of encounter, I would certainly be irritated with a game where the difficulty for firing a gun at short range altered from encounter to encounter, at least without there being a mechanical reason for it doing so. I don't see why having a similar stability of rules for Stealth is an issue).

Admittedly, I do have a couple of stealthy PCs in my party, which is generally quite combat-shy anyway, so I'm trying to cater to them by making sure that encounters they have are as understandable and engaging as combat encounters. And as you suggest, for other parties it may not be as valuable as other types of encounters. I never claimed to be trying to revolutionise the game here. Just supplementing it.

As to the idea that slicing and sabaac could take place at the same time...well, so could Stealth. Again, I'm sort of confused as to why there would be an assumption that this couldn't happen? Nothing to stop one PC sneaking through the ventilation pipes while another distracts the captain and a third hacks into the security system. In fact, that's basically the premise for every Mission Impossible scene ever! The rules I've suggested don't prevent that (I hope, although I'd be interested if people disagree with that statement).

I usually use Stealth as a one-roll-resolution skill. The PCs and I narratively describe their preparations, the security features, their methods for bypassing them, and any complications that arise. Then we'll build a dice pool and Robert is your mother's brother.

5 hours ago, SFC Snuffy said:

I usually use Stealth as a one-roll-resolution skill. The PCs and I narratively describe their preparations, the security features, their methods for bypassing them, and any complications that arise. Then we'll build a dice pool and Robert is your mother's brother.

Right you are, too many checks are bad for you; excessive dice rolling can cause fatigue fractures of the carpal bones.

That's why I will skip the ambushing Stealth check (see " I think I'm going to have to ditch the Initiative system "), merging it with the initiative check: Vigilance opposed by Stealth.