How do you handle "roguelike" moments

[Lord Darkview]

I'm returning to the ADRPG-style games after some absence (vacillating between running LoGaS or LoO).  These games are, in their own way, minimalist and yet comprehensive.  However, one critical question has always bugged me: how does one handle questions of stealth, larceny, and deceit?  Situations like:

1. Character A is trying to silently eavesdrop on Characters B & C conversing.
2. Character A strolls past Character B and attempts to swipe an artifact of some importance off B without them noticing.
3. Character A is telling B his reasons for meeting him in this unlikely place... reasons that have no basis whatsoever in truth.

While I know Warfare plays some role in deception in combat and on a military campaign scale, I'm not sure it's an obvious fit for these.  It also increases Warfare's value even more (I generally found it ranked, along with Psyche, way above Strength and Endurance in general importance to player success).  While I could lean on the "Stuff" trait, it feels a bit arbitrary to throw such a broad category of things people actually train to get good at into the luck category.

How do you handle it in your games?

[Doughdee222]

Interesting question. These games do tend to hand wave the whole issue of skills and skill levels which being "rogue like" depends on. This makes sense when characters are thousands of years old and can be said to have many long careers, have done everything, been everywhere, etc. If your PCs are to be 100 years or less though then skill sets will be smaller (although still potentially broad and deep.)

The first thing I would do is this: In another thread I mentioned that a quibble I have with Amber Diceless is that there are only 4 stats: Psyche, Strength, Endurance and Warfare. This is workable though and countless GMs have run plenty of games with them. Personally, I would rename Strength as "Body" or "Strength as Dexterity" or otherwise make it clear that the stat goes beyond mere muscles. During character creation have each player define better if their Strength/Body score leans toward muscle (Schwarzenegger or Hulk proportions) or leans toward being wiry and dexterous (Jackie Chan, Bruce Lee, Ballerina, etc.) Few people can be both a mass of muscles and twinkle toes at the same time, in fact from what I've read beyond a certain point they are exclusive.

Second, when the players describe their character's history, development and careers insist that the player wanting a "rogue like" character include that in their story. I.E. they spent 40 years becoming the world's best safe cracker, leader of a thieves guild or a character from the Danny Ocean films, or whatever. If they take Sorcery have them specialize in spells that would benefit the trade.

As to your examples... I agree that Warfare and Psyche tend to be the big stats and leaned on heavily. On the other hand, a lot of thieving and deception tends to be psyche-out and fool-the-eye stuff so I would lean toward Psyche more than Warfare. For pickpocket and disarm and climb-on-wires-over-the-floor stuff I would look to the "Strength as Dexterity" stat mentioned above. Your examples 1 and 3 are probably Psyche battles while 2 is half Psyche and half Strength/Body/Dex.

Don't forget that being an effective Rogue means keeping up on the technology of defenses. Is the character only conversant with medieval style locks, safes and guards? Do they know 21st century electronic safes and locks? Do they know about magical defenses? From the movies I've seen much of the trade comes down to study, study, study. Research some more and try to keep a step ahead.

[Lord Darkview]

Well, my concern is a little less on the nuances of whether a character knows this subset of Warfare versus that subset of Warfare.  I actually came up with a Specialty system to take care of that, which allows a low, fixed point cost to effectively be rated one rank better in that narrow area of a given Attribute.

Likewise, the difference between what a medieval thief and modern thief are used to has an easier representation, but those also get overshadowed in a century or two of having seen it all.

But that's not the main issue.  The main issue is, "How you even test whether my brother realizes I'm listening in on him and his conspirators?"  There is an argument that it might get lumped in with Stuff, as there are a lot of variables (the way the shadows fall, how attentive people are being, etc.) which mimic Social interactions that fall under Stuff.  Nonetheless, I'm unhappy with that result, as the sneak IS an archetype in no less a manner as the contemplative, deep, sinister minded sorcerer, and the latter gets system support.  So, if it is an Attribute, which is it?

One of the things I toyed around with combining Strength and Endurance (since they often do go together, and it increases the utility of two less useful Attributes), and adding a new fourth Attribute.  This Attribute, which I usually call Evasiveness or Deceit, represents a combination of many roguish traits, including both verbal deception (though not battlefield or combat deception), related skills such as sneaking around undetected, getting into places where you're not wanted, spinning good stories, selling things, etc...

Of course, ADRPG/LoO/LoGaS like the social emphasis to be left to the player-GM interactions, but there are just some players who can't lie convincingly and yet want to be able to play the sort of guy who does.  I don't think it obviates the strategic element to add something that gives them that.

[Doughdee222]

For the example of listening in on conspirators I would say it comes down to circumstances, what the players say they do and then possibly a Psyche battle. One has to ask how is Character A listening in? A hidden bug in the room? Ear planted to a door or thin wall or a small hole in the wall? A magical spell that aids hearing (there's a name for that, can't think of it offhand.) Or simply hiding in the rafters as Characters B and C speak below? Then one asks what do B and C do to protect themselves? Do they just walk up to each other and start talking? Does one carry a bug detector tool? Do they check the building and room for hidden people?

I remember hearing about (or was it a movie? Might have been a movie.) a theft at an art museum where the thief hid himself inside a statue of a horse which was delivered. Two days later he broke out of it and stole what he came for. (A literal Trojan Horse situation.) One could say in that instance the Endurance stat plays a large role in the deception. If your Player A hides himself in a sealed box for 3 days...

[Lord Darkview]

I gave this a lot of thought.  Deceit as its own Attribute solves the problem nicely by giving an obvious question to the answer of "What sort of person is good at evasion?"  However, switching Attributes has other implications for the system, and not all of them are good.

In the end, I decided I agree that it depends a lot on the particulars of the method.  What the game lacked was clarity on this since deception and discernment are matters of Warfare, while detecting thoughts as well as influencing or suppressing them are matters of Psyche.  In this case, I wrote up a clarification for my house rules document that indicates that the subject of the intended evasion or deception can choose which Attribute the challenge is waged with (are they more focused on listening psychically or evaluating their surroundings), with the other Attribute being the secondary tie-breaker.  For characters who are more rogueish, my specialties house rule allows someone to do just that without necessarily being forced to adopt the Psyche of a top tier magician or the Warfare of an iconic conqueror.

[Panjumanju]

Welcome Lord Darkview!

Good questions. Here are some answers that does not require changing anything about the system.

1. Eavesdropping: Character A's Warfare against the Warfare of Characters B & C. I've had this come up a lot. One of the notes I've had to pass in this circumstance is something to B or C (or both, but they won't know it's the same note) saying: "Someone is listening from beyond the door", or - depending on the difference of ranks "Character A is listening from beyond the door". The players can decide how they want to proceed from there. Depending on ranks I may hand a note to Character A saying: "You think you've been detected". I use notes for these things (even though I don't use them in any other RPG) because if you said it out loud other people would know too much.

2. PC vs PC Theft: Character A's Warfare against Character B's. This is even easier than the last one, because there are really only so many results. Either A's thing is stolen and he knows or he doesn't, or A's thing is not stolen and he knows or he doesn't. In this example and the last, I like to make clear to the player attempting such risky behaviour that while it is completely allowed, reprisal can be deadly. I once had a theft between PCs result in a duel. Great fun.

3. It's up to the Player to do the Convincing. Amber does not keep track of relevant social evaluations of the characters between PCs. The meta-game would become too tricky, anyway. This has to be a test of player A.* You can't tell player B "You have to be convinced because he has higher rank in such-and-such". That's not going to work anyway. These are Amberites.

* Many people see this as a flaw in the system, it ultimately demands a lot from the player, not just from the character. The assumption is more charismatic players would rise to the top - but I have never found this to be the case. I've found that the more charismatic a player is, the less trusted they are, and that the whole thing bull-curves itself nicely. Mileage may vary.

//Panjumanju

[RPGPundit]

I'm returning to the ADRPG-style games after some absence (vacillating between running LoGaS or LoO).  These games are, in their own way, minimalist and yet comprehensive.  However, one critical question has always bugged me: how does one handle questions of stealth, larceny, and deceit?  Situations like:

1. Character A is trying to silently eavesdrop on Characters B & C conversing.
2. Character A strolls past Character B and attempts to swipe an artifact of some importance off B without them noticing.
3. Character A is telling B his reasons for meeting him in this unlikely place... reasons that have no basis whatsoever in truth.

While I know Warfare plays some role in deception in combat and on a military campaign scale, I'm not sure it's an obvious fit for these.  It also increases Warfare's value even more (I generally found it ranked, along with Psyche, way above Strength and Endurance in general importance to player success).  While I could lean on the "Stuff" trait, it feels a bit arbitrary to throw such a broad category of things people actually train to get good at into the luck category.

How do you handle it in your games?

Here's the way I'd handle it in Lords of Olympus, and therefore how I handled it in Amber:

For questions 1 & 2:
A. Does the character have some kind of skill in doing this? Is it something they've done before? Is it something they were trained to do?
B. Do the characters being rogued-on have any relevant skills/experience in their personal history at being particularly able to avoid thievery? Skills in law enforcement, surveillance, recon?  

So, assuming no other modifiers (for example, no one is invisible, no one is using some kind of magic alarm, etc.), I would look at the place where the thing is happening (crowded street? Busy party?  or empty area with lots of room?).  I'd also be sure to ask the player doing the thievery just how they are doing it, and take note of anything particularly dumbass or clever. And only after all that compare the relevant Warfare (or Prowess, in LoO) stats.

If either side has skills, I'd modify the Warfare/Prowess rank/level accordingly. If the environment favors the rogue, or is not helpful at all, I would again modify the rank/level accordingly.  If the player is approaching it in a really dumb or really clever way, I'd  modify it accordingly too.

I would also consider if the 'victims' here are particularly distracted.

SO if the rogue is at least equal to or within one rank of his 'marks', I would have him succeed. Two ranks, if the victims are particularly distracted.

Otherwise, he gets spotted.

Your scenario #3 is a bit different. There I'd have the player roleplay it. I would base just how credible he was on just how good a job he does at the roleplaying, just how thick or naive the NPC is, just how predisposed the NPC is to believe him (i.e. how much he baseline trusts him), and if the way he's presenting the lie is good (or in some way really bad).