Giving power to the PCs

[shadowfox]

I was sitting on my couch the other day, watching Ocean's Eleven, when this idea hit me... It would be really awesome if, as a PC, I could pull off a stunt like that (well, that's my own opinion, at least). So, I started thinking about it, and I'm considering running it.

In essence, what I'd do is run it as a one-shot campaign; they are given an objective, given certain resources and/or funds, and I let them loose. The only two winning conditions that they would have to meet would be 1) to successfully complete their mission, and 2) to not get caught.

Now, I know I'd have to do a lot of preparation... As an example, and to keep with the spirit of Ocean's Eleven, their goal would be to rob a casino vault on the night of a major boxing fight. Now, there would be obvious problems with accomplishing that to begin with, but, if all the PCs work together, they should be able to accomplish the seemingly impossible task.

What I'd end up doing would be using the d20 Modern system, and, as my inspiration is from Ocean's Eleven, they'd be con men and criminals of various backgrounds. Some fast-talkers, some impersonators, some pickpockets, and maybe even a demolitions person. As the DM, I'd play the role of, well, the mastermind of the idea itself. I'd lay out what, at that moment, the known hurdles are (as more will inevitably pop up as time goes on). Based on that, I'll have each of the PCs make a character not only to their liking, but also have them actively participating in the creation of the group's ability makeup as well (communication between PCs in my D&D group is almost unheard of; I've just never been able to get them all together in one place to make their characters).

Now, in my group, the extent of giving control to PCs goes as far as tactical ability. We're generally given a mission, and follow through with that. Although I play with plenty of intelligent people (even if the intelligence doesn't show in one or two of them), we tend to be very straight-forward in terms of plans, and I tend to be the most creative (and by "creative," I mean "tactical").

Um... Really, what I'm asking here, is this: can this work? I'll come up with the givens beforehand. They'll know, at least, the basics before they start (and then uncover more information through research), and if they mess up enough (but not too much), then I'll have the system react accordingly (ex: hacking attempt failed; company increases digital security). What I'm worried about is how the PCs will handle this. From the pool of players... they're largely the type take things from a simple approach. Very straight-forward and, sometimes, blunt. I have the feeling that this could be a very, very fun and memorable campaign for them, or it could quickly fall to pieces.

So... Comments or advice?

[sonofzeal]

Mmm.... problems.

1) Forcing non-tactical players to be tactical is difficult and unlikely to work

2) Each "mission" will grind play to a halt as everyone waits for the hacker or the wheelboy or whatnot to do his segment.

3) D&D isn't really suited to this, but it's pretty much a perfect description of Shadowrun. You should look into that system, as it'll handle this concept much more fluidly than D&D will.

[TheCountAlucard]

3) D&D isn't really suited to this, but it's pretty much a perfect description of Shadowrun. You should look into that system, as it'll handle this concept much more fluidly than D&D will.

I was just about to recommend Shadowrun, but it appears you've handled it pretty well yourself. Good show. (patpat)

[valadil]

I ran a D&D game set in a thieves guild a while back. All the players were at least half rogue. It was a fantasy game, but ran very much what like you describe.

Preparation isn't nearly as bad as you think. All you have to do is define what their target is and how its defended - spells, guards, traps, locked doors, hidden doors, etc. Once the PCs get into things they'll start planning their break-in. This is where you'll have the most work to do. Just listen to the players and edit your notes based on what they're planning to do. Your plans should be somewhat modular. What I mean by that is that if you want an encounter with the guards, just stat a guard encounter and place it wherever it needs to be. You don't have to have those guards at each possible entrance. Same goes for traps or whatever else you put in a modern game to slow down players.

The one problem I had in this game, and I didn't even realize it was a problem until some players complained, was that they spent too much time in planning mode. A few players would go on with their preparations for hours and I was happy to watch because they were roleplaying at the time. But other players wanted to get things done. Watch the players who are being quiet and see if they get bored.

[shadowfox]

@ sonofzeal:

1) Oh, there are plenty of military junkies available in my PC pool, and between all of them can cover being tactical. The only problems I can foresee are too many people thinking along the same lines (therefore not allowing all options to be considered), or just leaving the PCs a bit lost in the sense of what to do (although, I've learned that if they get bogged down with a giant task, to suggest them start with one point and to work from there). Really, the biggest problem I'm worried about is the issue of creativity.

2) Well, I've handled a group of 12 PCs before while (somehow_ managing to keep everyone's attention. Ideally, most people would be up to their own devices, or helping other people plan. I've also been thinking of having someone as a co-DM this with me, although I admit that my original candidate was to run as NPCs (I have little affinity for playing NPCs, unforunately). You do bring up a very good point. My problem is with people that don't participate...

3) Well, I have the basic book for both Shadowrun versions 3 and 4, but of the current pool of players, only one person (other than myself) have had any experience with the system... And I've only played a little bit. From that experience, it seemed very unwieldly as a system, and, even as someone to take an interest in creating characters, I found the character creation process as complicated, yet surprisingly flexible and versatile (well, at least more versatile than D&D). However, I will consider it as an option... I just need to look over the books again. To be fair and honest, when I did play it as a PC, I didn't know all that much, nor was anything described in great detail... I shall give it a fair chance.

I really don't mean to brush the problems you foresee aside. I'll keep these in mind, and I'll make sure to tell the PCs what's expected of them before the campaign actually starts.

@ valadil:
Hm... Interesting. Modular isn't something I usually do, but it makes sense.

In any case, I really don't think I could make an entire campaign out of this. I'd make it more of an... extended one-shot, with one mission being played out over the course of multiple sessions. Then again, it doesn't make a difference...

I do see that as being a problem. Mainly because, in a campaign I was running with only 3 PCs, there was one person who sat there and doodled for most of the time, despite my best efforts of getting her to participate. The same PC will, most likely, participate in this one shot (should it even get off the ground). Maybe yet another reason to get a co-DM, and to make things more interactive...

[Tsotha-lanti]

In essence, what I'd do is run it as a one-shot campaign; they are given an objective, given certain resources and/or funds, and I let them loose. The only two winning conditions that they would have to meet would be 1) to successfully complete their mission, and 2) to not get caught.

This is how every sandbox game/campaign works. Scripting adventures is just going to lead to frustration when the players inevitably go off the tracks and start doing their own thing - so why lay down a track at all?

Preparation for a sandbox game is easy. You make maps and create NPCs. You decide what they do, generally. Then you just keep general track of what they're doing while the PCs are doing their stuff, and keep reacting to the PCs and when appropriate advancing events around them. It doesn't matter if the campaign setting is a big casino hotel or a fantasy world.

How complicated or clever a challenge your players can handle depends on them, obviouly. If you stress that they should break the big goal down to smaller goals and think and plan and surveil and so on, maybe they'll actually do it.

[bosssmiley]

Some thoughts on D&D as heist movie

[shadowfox]

Thanks all for the help. I've never done a sandbox game before, nor a Shadowrun campaign (thanks for the recommendations; it got me to take another look at it), nor have I taken on a co-DM before (it's official). I'll take these words of wisdom to heart, and... Well, ideas are already running through my head. Once I get the first idea, everything else comes in a rush, so thank you for helping me with the start.

[Lycar]

If I may be sop bold, Spycraft 2.0 would also lend itself to such a game.

Also, it is a D20 derivate, so you would find switching systems to be less of a hassle.

Also, look at the beautiful, beautiful things they did to feats.

Seriously, fighters in vanilla D&D wouldn't be considered so underpowerd if they could get their hands on some of the Spycraft stuff...

Lycar

[Silence]

The main problem I see is that you'll need experienced roleplayers to pull this off.