Home Artists Posts Import Register

Downloads

Content

A few of you noticed that in last week’s post that the tests document I posted made reference to montage tests. A bunch of folks on our Discord have been asking what the rules for montage tests look like, so I figured we should show them off.

It’s me—the James. Back in November, I showed off the rules for complex tests. Things have evolved quite a bit since then and not just because we introduced the power roll. In fact, before the power roll came to our game, I had already made a few tweaks based on testing feedback.

One of the biggest complaints with the November version was that complex tests felt too long, and that the hard difficulty tests didn’t feel any harder than easier ones, they just felt even longer. They’re not wrong. The math was such that you needed more successes to succeed byt also more failures to fail, so the odds of success or failure were about the same. I thought, “Ah, arduousness will make the test feel tougher!” and “More tests and not being able to reuse skills will also be part of the challenge with these longer tests.” I was wrong there. It didn’t make things feel harder. It just made it a slog. In hindsight, I probably should have seen that coming. Honestly, such is any creative project. If you’ve got the time, you should try out your ideas, even if you’re not sure they’ll work. It’s the only way to be sure. Trying something lets you move forward with confidence or leave the idea in the dust with confidence. That’s the point of playtesting.

To fix this issue, I’ve shortened the amount of time a test can take. Every montage test is only two rounds. That means each hero has a maximum of two chances to contribute to the test before we determine the outcome. Each roll counts more! That’s more dramatic.

Also, the higher the difficulty of the test, the more successes you need AND the fewer failures you can have. I was a little worried this would be too harsh, but so far it’s been pretty good. If anything, it might still be too easy! Behold the difficulty table:

The other big change here is that our testers reported being a little unsure HOW to deploy and narrate these tests as Directors. I went back and added some description and examples, and consulted with Matt about a name change for the tests. We decided on “montage test” because it describes how the tests should be employed. Each individual test within the montage test is a scene in a montage. It also fits our cinematic theme. So far the examples, description, and name change seem to have helped our testing Directors.

New Assist Rules

I realized that the latest and greatest rules for montage tests reference some new rules for assisting a test that we’re currently trying out. If these work, they’ll replace what I wrote in the previous post about tests.

You can attempt to assist another creature with a test that they make, provided that you have a skill that applies to the test, the other creature isn’t using that skill on the test, and you can describe how you help to the Director’s satisfaction. In other words, your attempt to help has to make sense, and you have to bring some useful expertise to the table. Helping another creature sneak by shouting encouragement at them isn’t going to make them stealthier.

When you attempt to assist another creature, make a challenging test with the skill you wish to use and a characteristic chosen by the Director and based on the action you take to help. The outcome of that dest determines the bonus applied to the test you’re assisting:

  • 7 or lower: You fail to assist in any meaningful way.

  • 8-10: Your help gives the other creature a +1 on their test.

  • 11+: Your help gives the other creature a +2 on their test.

For example, if you want to use Flirt to help another hero pick a jailor’s pocket, the Director will ask you to make a Presence test using the Flirt skill. The outcome of that test determines the bonus you provide to the other hero’s Agility test to pick the pocket.

Montage Test in PDF

The rules for montage tests as they stand as of this post are attached below. Please keep in mind that while I have gone over this document a few times, it’s still playtesting and hasn’t been edited yet. This thing will be a lot more refined in the end. Quick reminder, we’re not looking for suggestions here or on Discord. If this doesn’t work, we got more ideas ready to try.

FYI, one reason I’ve started posting these previews as attached PDFs is because Patreon’s formatting options have slimmed down, and even in our preview docs, we like to have a few levels of headers and whatnot.

Keep on rolling!

—James


Files

Art by Matheus Graef (Conceptopolis)
Art by Matheus Graef (Conceptopolis)

Comments

Caleb Fasnacht

I love the idea of putting things between rounds like a puzzle or a monster. That's inspired. 1 Victory for the team!

SneakySly

Neat stuff, liking the direction of things overall! One improvement to the aid rules IMO would be if the 7- result actually gave a -1 penalty to the roll to give it some proper stakes.

Kyman201

Honestly I think that would discourage people from trying. Maybe as an optional rule for if you roll snake eyes on your dice.

MShin

Having three levels of success instead of a binary success/fail + crit is pretty good for the director. Other systems have kind of multiple successes, but that tends to become very hard for the Director to use. In his head he always puts together 3 tiers most of the time anyway.

william white

I really like this i kind of house rule this into most games i GM, though i never thought of 3 levels of success nor really defined the rules. this is simple yet complex enough to not only cover many scenarios but help inspire the GM to be creative.