Procedures

What Are Procedures?

Some encounters are too complex to resolve with a single dice check. A negotiation isn’t just one roll — it involves opening positions, reading the room, trading concessions, and reaching a verdict. A crisis response unfolds through triage, action, communication, and stabilisation. These encounters have a natural sequence of phases that need to play out, and collapsing them to a single roll loses the texture that makes them worth playing.

Procedures are step-by-step recipes for running these encounters. Each procedure is a numbered sequence of 4–5 phases with clear labels, specific skill checks, and decision points. They give the GM a reliable structure to run complex scenes without having to improvise the whole thing, and they give players a shared understanding of how the encounter will progress.

Procedures vs. Crunch Time

Crunch Time uses initiative-based turns for rapid decision-making under pressure: everyone rolls initiative, then acts in order, one action per turn. It is designed for scenes where the pace is fast, the stakes are immediate, and every second counts.

Procedures are sequential phases for encounters that unfold over multiple steps. The phases are not timed — they follow each other logically as the situation develops. If the situation calls for quick decisions under pressure, use Crunch Time. If the encounter has a natural sequence of phases that need to play out, use a procedure.

The two systems work together. A procedure can run across multiple Crunch Time rounds — for example, the Crisis Response procedure might occupy several rounds of Crunch Time as pressure mounts. Alternatively, a procedure can structure a scene that has no initiative order at all, such as a board meeting or a regulatory audit where speed is not the primary tension.

Procedures and Decision Actions

The Decision Actions listed in Section 3 describe what characters can attempt. When a Decision Action involves multiple steps or needs to unfold over time, a procedure gives it the structure it requires. Actions such as Negotiate, Research, Implement, Adapt, and Coordinate each map to one or more procedures in this section. Where a procedure is the recommended way to run a particular action, that is noted in the procedure’s introduction.

These procedures cover encounters where the primary challenge is human: persuasion, negotiation, de-escalation, and mediation. The outcome depends heavily on how well participants read their counterparts and adapt their approach.

1. Negotiation

When two or more sides want different things and must reach agreement.

Stakes. The GM establishes what each side wants, what they will not accept, and what they stand to lose. Each side declares an opening position.
Opening. The initiating side presents their proposal. Roll CHA (Persuasion) to set the tone — success gives the proposer framing advantage.
Read the Room. Either side may roll WIS (Insight) to detect hidden priorities, or INT (Analysis) to assess the other side’s constraints. Successes reveal useful information the GM shares privately.
Concessions. Sides take turns offering and requesting concessions. Each meaningful concession shifts the final resolution DC by 2 in the conceding side’s favour. The GM may introduce an Inject if talks stall.
Resolution. The receiving side accepts, rejects, or defers. If contested, roll CHA (Persuasion) vs. the final adjusted DC. The GM narrates the outcome and its consequences.

This procedure works best when both sides have something to gain. If one side holds all the power, consider using Stakeholder Pitch instead — the dynamic is closer to seeking approval than exchanging value.

2. Stakeholder Pitch

When you must present a case to people who can approve or reject it.

Prepare. Declare your key argument and evidence. Roll INT (Analysis) to assess how strong your case is — the GM privately sets the audience’s scepticism DC based on the result.
Deliver. Present your case. Roll CHA (Performance) for delivery. Success lowers the audience’s resistance; failure means they start sceptical.
Field Questions. The audience (GM) asks 1d4 challenging questions. Each answer requires a relevant skill check. Track successes and failures.
Deliberate. The audience considers. Each successful answer from step 3 lowers the final DC by 2. Each failure raises it by 2.
Verdict. The GM announces the decision. On a borderline result, the audience may approve with conditions rather than reject outright.

The Prepare step rewards players who do their homework before the scene. If players skip straight to the pitch without establishing their evidence, set the scepticism DC high to reflect the audience’s uncertainty.

3. Media / Press Conference

When your words will be reported to the public and you cannot take them back.

Brief. Choose a spokesperson and agree on the key message. Roll INT (Analysis) to prepare talking points — success grants Advantage on the opening statement.
Statement. The spokesperson delivers the prepared message. Roll CHA (Performance) to set the baseline narrative. This roll determines whether coverage starts sympathetic, neutral, or hostile.
Questions. The GM asks 1d6 journalist questions: some hostile, some fair, some probing. Each requires CHA (Persuasion) to stay on message or CHA (Deception) to deflect.
Follow-ups. Each failed check in step 3 generates a harder follow-up question (DC +2). Each success ends that line of questioning. The GM may introduce an Inject — a leaked document, a heckler, a breaking development.
Coverage. The GM narrates how the story runs. Aggregate performance determines whether the narrative lands as intended, gets twisted, or blows up.

Scale the number of journalist questions to the time available and the weight of the scenario — a 1d4 roll works fine for shorter scenes. The Inject in step 4 is where memorable moments happen; prepare one or two surprises in advance.

4. Customer Escalation

When someone with power is angry and the relationship is at risk.

Receive. The GM describes the complaint and the customer’s emotional state. Roll WIS (Insight) to understand what they actually need versus what they are saying.
Acknowledge. Respond to the customer. Roll CHA (Persuasion) to de-escalate. Failure raises the DC of all subsequent steps by 2 — the customer digs in.
Investigate. Look into the issue. Roll INT (Investigation) to determine what went wrong and who is responsible. The GM reveals details proportional to the roll.
Offer. Propose a resolution. Roll CHA (Persuasion) vs. the customer’s adjusted disposition DC. Advantage if the offer directly addresses the root cause found in step 3.
Outcome. The customer accepts, rejects, or escalates further. The GM narrates the reputational and relationship consequences.

The Acknowledge step is the most consequential — a defensive or dismissive response in step 2 compounds every step that follows. Use this to reinforce the lesson that how you respond matters as much as what you ultimately offer.

5. Conflict Mediation

When two parties are in dispute and someone must help them find common ground.

Hear Both Sides. The GM presents each party’s position. The mediator rolls WIS (Insight) for each party to identify their true concerns beneath the stated positions.
Reframe. The mediator restates the conflict in neutral terms. Roll CHA (Persuasion) to get both parties to agree on a shared problem statement. Failure means one side refuses the framing.
Generate Options. The mediator proposes possible solutions. Roll INT (Analysis) to identify compromises that address both sides’ core concerns.
Broker Agreement. Roll CHA (Persuasion) for each party. Grant Advantage if the proposed solution directly addresses their core concern from step 1.
Commit. Parties formalise the agreement. The GM narrates whether the resolution holds or fractures under subsequent pressure.

The quality of the Hear Both Sides step determines the ceiling for the whole procedure. If the mediator skips past it or rolls poorly, the subsequent reframing will miss the mark and the agreement will be fragile.

Category B: Decision & Governance

These procedures cover formal decision-making processes: committee votes, resource competition, regulatory scrutiny, and competitive bids. The challenge is often as much about process and politics as it is about the merits of the case.

6. Board / Committee Decision

When a formal body must debate and vote on a motion.

Table the Motion. The GM states the decision before the body. The proposer presents their case.
Debate. Members speak in turn. Persuasive arguments use CHA (Persuasion); factual arguments use INT (Analysis). Each successful check may shift one undecided NPC member.
Amend. Any member may propose amendments. Each amendment triggers a brief argument and counter-argument before being accepted or rejected by the chair.
Vote. All members vote. NPC votes are determined by their disposition, modified by the debate. The GM announces the result. Ties follow the body’s rules — the chair breaks it, or the motion fails.
Record. The GM narrates the decision, any dissenting opinions, and the immediate consequences that follow.

This procedure is most effective when players have done prior relationship-building with NPC members before the meeting. If they arrive without any prior influence work, treat all undecided members as starting hostile.

7. Resource Allocation

When multiple claimants compete for a limited pool of budget, headcount, or time.

Declare the Pool. The GM announces the total resources available and lists the competing requests. Each request must exceed what is available — otherwise there is no procedure needed.
Make Your Case. Each claimant presents their justification in turn. Roll CHA (Persuasion) to argue priority or INT (Analysis) to demonstrate need with evidence.
Challenge. Other claimants may dispute a request. Roll WIS (Insight) to identify waste or INT (Analysis) to propose a more efficient alternative.
Allocate. The decision-maker distributes resources. Check results from steps 2 and 3 influence share size. The GM may introduce an Inject that changes the total pool mid-procedure.
Consequences. The GM narrates the downstream effects for each claimant — what they can and cannot do with what they received.

The Inject in the Allocate step — a sudden budget cut, a new priority that arrives mid-meeting — is particularly useful for teaching adaptive thinking under constraint.

8. Regulatory Encounter

When inspectors, auditors, or regulators arrive with authority over your operations.

Scope. The GM establishes what the regulator is examining, their authority, and their disposition. Players decide who represents the organisation.
Inquiry. The regulator asks questions. Roll INT (History) to cite relevant compliance, or CHA (Persuasion) to frame responses in the best light. The GM may ask follow-up questions.
Evidence. The regulator requests documentation or access. Roll INT (Investigation) to locate and present supporting evidence. Missing or contradictory evidence raises the scrutiny DC by 2.
Findings. The GM determines preliminary findings based on accumulated results. Players may respond with remediation commitments or additional evidence.
Ruling. The regulator issues a determination: compliant, conditionally compliant, non-compliant, or referred for enforcement. The GM narrates consequences and any required follow-up.

The regulator’s starting disposition should reflect the scenario context — a routine audit starts neutral, a triggered investigation starts suspicious. The Findings step gives players a final chance to correct the trajectory before the ruling locks in.

9. Competitive Bid / Tender

When you are competing head-to-head against rivals for a contract or opportunity.

Read the Brief. The GM describes the opportunity and its evaluation criteria — price, quality, capability, risk. Players decide their bid strategy.
Build the Bid. Players assemble their proposal. Roll INT (Analysis) for technical merit and CHA (Performance) for presentation quality.
Submit and Wait. Bids are submitted blind. The GM evaluates each bid against the stated criteria, factoring in check results and competitor strength.
Clarifications. The evaluator (GM) may request clarifications or a presentation. Each question requires a relevant skill check under pressure.
Award. The GM announces the winner and provides feedback on scoring. Unsuccessful bidders learn specifically where they fell short.

The feedback in the Award step is as important as the result. Win or lose, players should leave knowing what their score was on each criterion and where the winning bid outperformed them.

Category C: Crisis & Response

These procedures cover situations where something has gone wrong, is going wrong, or is at risk of going wrong. The challenge is navigating uncertainty, incomplete information, and competing demands under time pressure.

10. Crisis Response

When something has gone wrong, time is short, and information is incomplete.

Alert. The GM describes the crisis trigger with deliberately incomplete information. Roll WIS (Perception) to assess initial severity — the GM reveals detail proportional to the result.
Assemble. Players decide who to involve and assign roles: lead, comms, operations, analysis. Roll INT (Analysis) to identify the top three immediate priorities.
Act. Players declare their actions. Resolve each with the relevant skill check. The GM introduces an Inject after each round of actions: new information, escalation, resource loss, or a secondary crisis.
Communicate. Players must decide what to tell each stakeholder group. Roll CHA (Persuasion) per audience. Choosing silence is a valid action — but the GM assigns consequences for it.
Stabilise or Escalate. The GM determines whether the crisis is contained, holding, or worsening. If unresolved, return to step 3. If stabilised, the GM narrates the aftermath.

The loop back to step 3 is what makes this procedure feel like a real crisis — stabilisation takes multiple rounds of effort, not a single decisive action. Use the Injects deliberately to introduce the secondary complications that real crises always produce.

11. Investigation / Due Diligence

When you need to uncover the truth through systematic inquiry.

Scope. Players define what they are investigating and what they hope to find. The GM secretly determines what evidence exists, where it is, and who might obstruct access.
Gather. Players choose lines of inquiry. Each requires a check: INT (Investigation) for documents and records, WIS (Insight) for interviews, INT (Analysis) for data patterns. Each success reveals one piece of evidence.
Connect. Players review their findings. Roll INT (Analysis) to identify connections between evidence. The GM reveals relationships proportional to the roll — a high result may reveal the full picture, a low one only fragments.
Confront. Players may present findings to subjects. Roll CHA (Persuasion) or STR (Intimidate) to press for answers. Roll WIS (Insight) to detect evasion. Subjects may provide new leads or shut down.
Report. Players present their conclusions. The strength of the report depends on evidence gathered and connections made. The GM narrates how recipients respond to the findings.

Decide before running this procedure how much evidence exists and where the critical pieces are hidden. Players who skip the Gather step and go straight to Confront will lack the evidence needed to get past a subject’s defences.

12. Whistleblower Handling

When someone reports wrongdoing and the organisation must respond with care.

Receive. The GM describes the allegation, the channel used, and the reporter’s state of mind. Roll WIS (Insight) to assess credibility and urgency.
Protect. Players decide how to safeguard the reporter. Roll INT (Analysis) to identify exposure risks. Failure may inadvertently reveal the reporter’s identity — the GM narrates the consequences.
Investigate. Players look into the allegation. This may invoke the Investigation / Due Diligence procedure. The key constraint: the accused must not be alerted prematurely.
Decide. Players determine the allegation’s merit and choose a course of action. Roll CHA (Persuasion) if escalating to leadership. Roll INT (Analysis) if recommending systemic change.
Act. The GM narrates the consequences of the chosen response: impact on the reporter, the accused, organisational trust, and any legal or regulatory exposure.

The Protect step is where many groups make costly mistakes — acting quickly without thinking through who might infer the reporter’s identity from the investigation itself. Build in time for players to reason through the exposure risks before moving on.

13. Change Announcement

When you must deliver difficult news to people who will be affected by it.

Prepare. Define the message, the audience, and the timing. Roll INT (Analysis) to anticipate likely reactions. Roll CHA (Performance) to rehearse the delivery.
Deliver. The spokesperson makes the announcement. Roll CHA (Persuasion) vs. the audience’s resistance DC — set higher for bad news, lower for neutral changes.
Absorb Reactions. The GM narrates the audience’s immediate response. Players must respond to 1d4 reactions — anger, fear, confusion, or direct challenge. Each requires a relevant skill check.
Follow Up. Players address individual concerns. Roll WIS (Insight) to identify who needs personal attention. Roll CHA (Persuasion) to reassure or redirect.
Settle. The GM determines the organisational mood. Morale, trust, and productivity consequences are narrated. Some effects may be delayed and surface later in the exercise.

The Settle step’s delayed consequences work well in multi-session exercises — plant a seed here that blooms into a complication later. In single-session play, narrate the consequences immediately but flag that trust takes time to rebuild.

14. Strategic Pivot

When circumstances have changed and the current plan is no longer viable.

Recognise. The GM presents the changed circumstances, or players declare the pivot. Roll WIS (Perception) to assess which elements of the original plan still hold and which are broken.
Triage. Players identify what to keep, what to abandon, and what to replace. Roll INT (Analysis) to prioritise — failure means wasted effort on something that should have been cut.
Redesign. Players draft a revised approach. Roll INT (Analysis) or CHA (Persuasion) to gain buy-in from stakeholders who were committed to the original plan.
Redeploy. Players reassign resources and communicate the new direction. Roll CHA (Performance) to maintain confidence. Failure may cause some team members or allies to resist or defect.
Execute. The GM narrates the transition. Lingering commitments from the old plan may create friction. The GM determines whether the pivot gains traction or stalls.

This procedure is most impactful when players have already invested effort in the original plan before the pivot is triggered. The emotional weight of abandoning prior work is the point — use it to teach the difference between sunk-cost thinking and genuine reappraisal.

Category D: Influence & Alignment

These procedures cover situations where the challenge is not resolving a single conversation but building durable alignment across independent parties. They unfold over multiple engagements and reward players who invest in preparation and relationship management.

15. Coalition Building

Use when players need multiple independent parties to align behind a shared position.

Map the landscape. Players identify potential allies and their interests. Roll INT (Analysis) or WIS (Insight) to understand each party’s priorities, constraints, and red lines.
Approach individually. Players engage each potential ally one-on-one. Roll CHA (Persuasion) per party, with DC based on how well the proposal aligns with their interests.
Balance concessions. Allies may demand changes. Each concession to one ally shifts other allies’ disposition — some positively, some negatively. Players must navigate the trade-offs.
Formalise. Players propose the shared position. Roll CHA (Persuasion) with Advantage if the proposal addresses every ally’s core concern from step 1. Failure means the coalition forms without one or more parties.
Stress test. The GM introduces a pressure event to test cohesion. Each coalition member’s commitment is checked. Weak links may defect, renegotiate, or publicly break ranks.

Run step 2 as a separate scene for each potential ally — the individual conversations reveal tensions that only become apparent when players try to reconcile competing demands in step 3.

16. Lobbying / Advocacy

Use when players must influence an external decision-maker’s position or policy.

Research. Study the decision-maker’s priorities, constraints, and existing commitments. Roll INT (Investigation) or INT (History) to understand the political landscape.
Frame. Craft the argument in terms the decision-maker values. Roll INT (Analysis) to align the case to their stated priorities. Failure means the framing feels self-serving.
Gain access. Secure a meeting or platform. Roll CHA (Persuasion), modified by existing relationships. Failure means players are limited to indirect channels — written submissions, intermediaries, or public campaigns.
Make your case. Present the argument directly. Roll CHA (Persuasion) vs the decision-maker’s conviction DC. Grant Advantage if players bring compelling evidence or endorsements.
Sustain. The GM narrates the decision-maker’s response and timeline. Influence rarely lands in one meeting — players may need to repeat steps 3–4 over multiple sessions to shift a position.

Step 5 is deliberately open-ended. For long-form exercises, have players return to this procedure across multiple rounds to reflect that advocacy is a campaign, not a single action.

Category E: Operations & Execution

These procedures structure the execution side of play — getting things done, coordinating across groups, managing risk, and building capability. They pair naturally with Crunch Time rounds and work well as multi-round sequences inside a longer exercise.

17. Operational Deployment

Use when a plan must be executed across multiple teams, phases, or locations.

Brief. The lead presents the plan to all involved parties. Roll CHA (Performance) to communicate clearly. Failure means some teams misunderstand their role — the GM notes which ones.
Sequence. Players establish the order of operations and dependencies. Roll INT (Analysis) to identify bottlenecks and single points of failure. Success reveals risks before they bite.
Launch. Teams execute their assigned tasks. The GM resolves each team’s actions with relevant skill checks. Failed checks create delays or errors that cascade to dependent tasks.
Monitor. Players track progress. Roll WIS (Perception) to catch problems early. The GM introduces Injects: a supplier is late, a key person is unavailable, requirements change mid-execution.
Complete. The GM narrates the overall result. Partial success is common — the GM describes what worked, what didn’t, and what remains unfinished.

Use step 3 as the primary source of Injects during this procedure. Cascading failures from one team affecting another create the most realistic and instructive execution scenarios.

18. Joint Operations

Use when independent groups must coordinate their actions without a single chain of command.

Align objectives. Each group states their goal. Roll WIS (Insight) to identify where objectives overlap and where they conflict. The GM reveals tensions the parties may not see.
Assign roles. Players negotiate who does what. Roll CHA (Persuasion) if groups disagree on responsibilities. No group can be compelled — they must be convinced.
Synchronise. Players establish timing, communication channels, and decision rights. Roll INT (Analysis) to create a workable coordination plan. Failure means gaps in the handoffs.
Execute. Groups act according to the plan. The GM resolves each group’s actions independently, then describes how they interact. Miscommunication Injects are common here.
Debrief. The GM narrates the combined outcome. Success depends on both individual performance and coordination quality. The debrief surfaces lessons for future joint operations.

This procedure works best when at least one player represents each independent group, giving each person a stake in the negotiation at steps 1 and 2.

19. Risk Assessment & Mitigation

Use when players need to systematically identify, evaluate, and reduce threats before they materialise.

Scan. Players brainstorm potential risks. Roll WIS (Perception) to spot non-obvious threats. Roll INT (Analysis) to assess which risks are most likely and most damaging. The GM may add risks the players missed.
Prioritise. Players rank risks by likelihood and impact. Roll INT (Analysis) to build an accurate risk matrix. Failure means the ranking is skewed — the GM privately notes which risks are over- or under-weighted.
Plan controls. For each high-priority risk, players propose a mitigation action. Roll INT (Analysis) to design effective controls. Each mitigation requires resources — players must decide what they can afford.
Implement. Players put controls in place. Roll relevant skill checks per control. The GM narrates which controls are functioning and which have gaps.
Review. The GM triggers one of the identified risks (or an unidentified one) to test the mitigations. Players respond using the controls they established. The procedure reveals how well the preparation holds.

Step 5 is the payoff. Triggering a risk the players under-weighted in step 2 is one of the most effective teaching moments this system can produce.

20. Operational Review

Use after something has happened and the group needs to understand what, why, and what to change.

Gather accounts. Players collect perspectives from those involved. Roll WIS (Insight) to separate fact from opinion and identify blind spots.
Reconstruct. Players build a timeline of events. Roll INT (Analysis) to identify the sequence of decisions and their consequences. The GM fills in gaps the players cannot see.
Analyse causes. Players identify root causes versus symptoms. Roll INT (Analysis) to distinguish systemic issues from one-off errors. Failure means the review blames individuals instead of systems.
Recommend. Players propose changes to prevent recurrence. Roll INT (Analysis) to design practical recommendations. Roll CHA (Persuasion) to frame them so leadership will accept them.
Close. The GM narrates how the recommendations are received. Some may be adopted, some deferred, and some rejected. The review’s credibility depends on the quality of evidence and analysis.

Run this procedure at the end of a Crisis Response or Operational Deployment sequence to give the exercise a reflective closing phase that maps naturally to real-world after-action reviews.

21. Innovation Sprint

Use when players need new ideas under constraints and the obvious solutions won’t work.

Define the problem. Players agree on what needs solving and what constraints apply (time, budget, regulation, capability). Roll INT (Analysis) to frame the problem clearly — a poor frame leads to solutions that miss the point.
Diverge. Each player proposes at least one idea without judgement. No rolls — this is pure discussion. The GM may prompt with “what if” questions to push thinking further.
Evaluate. Players assess each idea against the constraints from step 1. Roll INT (Analysis) to identify the most promising options and their risks. Roll WIS (Insight) to anticipate unintended consequences.
Prototype. Players select one or two ideas to develop. Roll relevant skill checks to flesh out the concept: INT (Analysis) for feasibility, CHA (Persuasion) for stakeholder appeal.
Test. The GM introduces a scenario that tests the proposed solution. Players respond using their innovation. The GM narrates whether it works, partially works, or fails — and what they learn from the attempt.

Step 2 has no rolls by design. Removing mechanical pressure during ideation produces more candid discussion and better ideas than any dice result would.

22. Training & Mentoring

Use when knowledge or skill must be transferred from one character to another.

Assess. The trainer evaluates the learner’s current capability. Roll WIS (Insight) to identify gaps and the learner’s preferred style. This sets the baseline DC for the training.
Teach. The trainer demonstrates or explains the skill. Roll the trainer’s relevant skill to determine the quality of instruction. Success lowers the learner’s DC; failure means the explanation is unclear.
Practice. The learner attempts the skill under supervision. Roll the learner’s relevant stat at the adjusted DC. Failure is expected and informative — the GM describes what went wrong.
Feedback. The trainer provides correction. Roll WIS (Insight) to diagnose the learner’s specific mistake. Success grants the learner Advantage on their next attempt.
Demonstrate. The learner attempts the skill independently. Roll at the original DC. Success means the skill is acquired for this scenario. Failure means more practice is needed — repeat from step 3 if time permits.

This procedure works well as a framing device for exercises where one player takes an expert role and others are deliberately positioned as learners navigating an unfamiliar domain.

Creating Your Own Procedures

The 22 procedures above cover the most common structured encounter types in business and organisational scenarios. They won’t cover everything. If your exercise involves a situation with a natural multi-step flow that doesn’t fit an existing procedure, build one.

How to design a procedure

Think about what encounter type you need. What is the situation? What makes it complex enough to need a procedure rather than a single roll? If you can resolve it in one check, you probably don’t need a procedure.
Identify the natural phases. What happens first? What follows from that? Map out the sequence of events as they would unfold in real life — the procedure should feel like a stylised version of how the situation actually works.
Assign relevant skill checks to each phase. Match each step to the skill that would genuinely matter at that moment. Avoid defaulting to CHA (Persuasion) for everything — varied skill demands make procedures more interesting and reward different character builds.
Keep it to 5 steps or fewer. Longer procedures lose momentum. If your draft runs to 7 or 8 steps, look for steps that can be combined or cut without losing the core experience.
Playtest and adjust DCs based on how it runs. Your first draft will likely be too hard or too easy. Run it once, note where players breezed through or got stuck, and tune the DCs accordingly. Two or three playtests usually produce a solid procedure.