Leverage Day!

[Supplanter]

Off to play the game at Labyrinth Puzzles & Games on Capitol Hill in DC! What will I be - Thief? Grifter? Mastermind? Que sera, sera!


Jim

[Cam]

Don't forget a new episode's on TNT tonight!

Cheers,
Cam

[pksullivan]

Hope you had fun!

[Supplanter]

Don't forget a new episode's on TNT tonight!

Ironically, I got back too late from playing Leverage to watch it.

Hope you had fun!

Thanks!

I played a Mastermind for the first time. And the store manager, Kathleen, played a thief. I'm not sure if this was her first actual roleplaying session, but if not it was one of her first: she's an avid board- and card-gamer but doesn't have a history with RPGs. She had a lot of fun emphasizing the need to protect her character's delicate hands.


Jim

[Supplanter]

While I had some issues with the session, it was interesting in a number of ways:

* It brought home the enormous responsibility on the Mastermind to make sure everyone gets a chance to contribute meaningfully to the job
* It reinforced my sense that the hardest Role to spotlight in a lot of jobs is the Hitter. It's probably the first Primary to drop if you have fewer than 5 players, and if there is a Hitter, both Fixer and Mastermind have to keep looking to make room for Hitting. It's actually super-cool that Leverage works so well as a game even though violence is basically an afterthought. That alone puts it in my Top 10 RPGs of all time. But the combination of a milieu where initiating violence against others is usually morally wrong and often counterproductive with a character type whose specialty is violence is a gameplay challenge. (Very short solution: if you're the Fixer, make sure the villain has some muscle and that whaling on the muscle becomes morally justifiable at some point. If you're the Mastermind, keep an eye out for the muscle!) And if you play a Hitter, expect to use your secondary role a lot, and choose one that will be fun for you.


Jim

[pksullivan]

The use of violence isn't necessarily immoral in the Leverage TV show - all the main characters (except maybe Sophie?) have punched/kicked/tazed someone over the course of the program. And I'm fairly certain Sophie has drugged/poisoned someone, which is just a highly specialized form of inflicting physical harm, even if it's not fighting. The point is that the players in the con have no qualms about hurting someone (physically, emotionally, or monetarily).

The problem with violence in a con game is that it needs to advance the needs of the crew, that is it needs push the con to the endgame. The judicious application of violence is valuable, not violence for its own sake. Contrast this with most RPGs, starting with D&D and even continuing somewhat to Marvel Heroic, where the fights are the big set pieces and provide much of the visceral reward ("Dude! Critical on the dragon with my vorpal bastard sword! Sweet!" or "Thing just knocked out Scorpion with a single punch. On a reaction. High-five!"). You get the visceral reward in Leverage from being clever, not from being the toughest guy with a sword. (Some people I know would argue early editions of D&D were designed that way; to successfully navigate a dungeon required creativity on the part of the players to avoid traps and even combat whenever possible.)

The set piece in Leverage is the con - which has many players and moving parts. If you do a con properly Leverage style, it is part social engineering, part Rube Goldberg device, part second story work, part judicious application of violence, and part grand scheme. The Hitter is just one of the players in that game and the violence is a fairly minor part of it. The suggestion to give the Mark thugs to throw at the Hitter is a good one. Your classic bad guy has underlings who are neither too bright nor disinclined toward violence. Consider also throwing in a complication of investigating police officers rushing to the scene of a crime. They need to be disabled before busting in and finding the thief elbow deep in a safe. Hitter to the rescue! (Bonus points if he pulls on a ski mask or otherwise disguises his appearance.) Or make the Hitter's ability to fight key to the con like the episode where Elliot becomes an MMA fighter in Middle of Nowhere, ND. Or have the Hitter attack the Mark directly and another character "save" him as part of the con. There are plenty of interesting choices. You're right, though, they just aren't as obvious as the rest of the roles.

[Supplanter]

Good thoughts. I should clarify what I mean by moral acceptability of violence in the context of Leverage.

In a genuinely criminal con, the Hitter might inflict violence on an innocent party purely because it's convenient to get the innocent party out of the way. (Or, you know, shoot a kid on a motorbike just cause he happens to show up in the wrong place at the wrong time . . . ) Or the Hitter will willingly harm blameless third parties who try to do their legitimate jobs - e.g. a couple of mall cops.

In Leverage, when the crew resort to violence it's in direct self-defense or defense of an innocent person (like the client) against a pretty bad actor. Elliott avoids fighting cops (not to say he's never done it); I don't even recall them provoking fights where they could act under color of "self defense" - say, insulting one of the Mark's cronies in a bar and then whaling on him when he takes a swing, just to get the crony out of the way. Elliott generally needs there to be witting bad guys so that even if they're working as glorified security guards, they're glorified security guards who know they are part of a criminal enterprise. More often they are straight-up hired muscle out to hurt or kill someone.

When I'm the Fixer, those are the guys I'm most prone to forget to include. Then, as you point out, the additional complication is that having the Hitter whale on those guys has to further the con itself, or at least not derail it.


Jim

[Supplanter]

(Some people I know would argue early editions of D&D were designed that way; to successfully navigate a dungeon required creativity on the part of the players to avoid traps and even combat whenever possible.)

Yeah, there is something to that. It was different from Leverage in that in D&D it was about trying to minimize engagement with the dice system because engaging the dice system in early D&D was tantamount to suicide. In Leverage, as you know, the dice system is how you employ creativity.


Jim

[pksullivan]

Thanks for the clarification. It is much clearer what you meant by moral acceptability. Based on my experience, I'd be much more worried about the Thief going off the rails and just pick pocketing entire crowds for no reason*. The entire team (real and fictional) needs to stay on point and use their skills to drive the game (both the Leverage RPG and the con-game-within-the-RPG). That's the nature of conflict resolution mechanics. Only things that really matter need to be or should be rolled, whereas task resolution can have some leeway for extra rolls because none of them should be as important as an entire conflict.

As the Fixer, keep the crew locked on, make sure everyone can use their best Role and that the conflicts they are having are pushing toward the climax. As a player, do your best to pay attention, find ways to look cool and be useful with your best Role, interesting ways to use your worst Role, and always use a roll to resolve one conflict but hopefully set up another.

Can I just say that this whole con game construct makes it very difficult to communicate clearly about the game?

*Which isn't to say the thief can't be given that opportunity. Some of my wife's favorite montages are when Parker glides, dances, and otherwise moves through a room rifling through every pocket and purse she can get her greedy little fingers in. The point is that Parker only does that when she needs to because the team needs something in a hurry, be it particular concert tickets, a cell phone, or some sort of ID badge.

[Supplanter]

I concur right down the line.

Thanks,


Jim