Sell me on the Hedonism Scheme, because I really don’t see the appeal and I’m curious if I’m just missing what other people are seeing. I like the rest of the Immortal’s schemes, but this one I just don’t get, on account of:
1) I don’t know how to visualize it fictionally. How do you make a grand setup to not do stuff?
2) It’s mechanically flat. It doesn’t have any unique effects, just a limited number of guaranteed results on a universal move.
3) At the end of the day, what it allows you to do is refuse to engage with the fiction with no reprisal. This seems really against the spirit of the game, and also weirdly at odds with how much fiction you have to engage with to complete the scheme in the first place.
For the last, I can just about see an argument that you’re refusing to engage with the fiction except on your own terms, but I’m not sure I like that. And it doesn’t change the first two problems.
Thoughts, rebuttals?
(I’ll be really embarrassed if there’s a new Immortal and I just haven’t seen it yet)
.
.
Good feedback, James Etheridge! Here are my thoughts:
1) The hedonism scheme is about looking like you don’t care. Think Bruce Wayne in The Dark Knight. He basically shuts down an entire ballet troupe to give the appearance that he’s a spoiled playboy.
2) Fair enough!
3) It’s absolutely an “on my own terms” move. The goal is to give yourself some measure of control when someone you owe is moving against you, i..e. you are probably not the protagonist here.
I think this owes a bit to the Battlebabe’s special move, which also sounds boring but is often used to great effect in the context of actual play.
Oh, and you’ve got the most updated version. We’ve been working on the main text. We’ll get to the LE playbooks as soon as we’re send the book to the printer!
I dont mind the Hedonism scheme. Here is why- if you want to player a Duncan McLeod type of Immortal who isnt trying to accomplish anything in particular and is just trying to live life (teach some martial arts, have a relationship etc). then Hedonism seems to fit. Otherwise the schemes kinda force you to be a certain type of Immortal- scheming, manipulative and proactive. If thats not a good fit, then you need a ‘get out of manipulation’ card. After all whats involved in a Hedonist scheme? Go off fishing for a year. Spend a lifetime learning how to paint? Hedonism.
Actually another thought- why is the scheme mechanic an Immortal only thing? I can see someone thinking it’ll give the Immortals something to do with their immortality, but equally wouldnt a long lived Vampire, Wizard, Fae or Veteran also want to have a scheme or two in motion?
Steve Ellis nails it. That’s another great use.
To some degree, the lack of scheming on the other playbooks indicates their temporal view. In our world, those other playbooks are more concerned with the here and now…
But the problem is that in play, those schemes happen in game time – 1 scheme hold per session start, rather than the longer periods afforded by immortality. And they can lead to some pretty tasty rewards – there doesnt seem to be anything in timing terms to stop another playbook doing it.
If however you mean temporal view to mean that Immortals always prepare and savour their goals (so elaborately getting close to someone for Revenge, while a Hunter might just walk up to them and shoot them in the head) then again it seems to be framing the Immortals pretty hard into the master-manipulator pigeon hole. There are going to be some impatient or reckless Immortals out there too for which long burning schemes are not appropriate. They may not live as long, but they are still very difficult to kill which may make them reckless (and more prone to shooting folks in the head, knowing they should survive the villains henchmen).
Actually thats an idea – replace the Debt economy of the game by replacing it with Schemes – give everyone the Scheme mechanics powers and let Scheming holds be transferable (“aid me in my plans now and I’ll assist you in yours too”) and see how hyper-political and Machiavellian a game you get as a result?
Ah, two very good angles I hadn’t considered, Mark Diaz Truman and Steve Ellis, thanks! I can definitely see where the scheme is coming from.
Still not convinced by the mechanics, though. Do you think it would be too much to be able to Refuse a Debt at 10+ by marking corruption, instead of having a limited number of uses? Perhaps if it were limited to a particular faction to show that there’s at least one group who can’t pull your strings unless you let them?
(Incidentally, I wouldn’t replace the Debt economy, personally. It does too much really awesome stuff; everyone scheming just seems like it would turn into a collection of single-player games pretty fast.)
Steve Ellis – Yup! That’s how we’re framing them. The goal of a playbook is to push the archetype into a particular place (which is why the Vamp is a drug dealer/pusher/addict and not a noble lord of the night.)
James Etheridge – I think what’s interesting about the refusal is that you get three of them. Each time you use one up, it’s gone. That’s a pretty cool moment. Marking corruption is too stiff a penalty. Limiting it to one faction might work, but it’s just going to reduce the number of time it can trigger.
Mark Diaz Truman The Immortal as master manipulator was an odd left turn in the 2.1 version for me, as I preferred the v.1 type which was much more the Duncan McCleod archetype from the Highlander tv series (down to the start of session move which has trouble from your past show up in town every week to make life interesting). I can see the advantages of a more proactive v2.1 versus the more more reactive v.1 but I honestly just want to play a Highlander type who’ll defend himself in the Game, but not go around manipulating others – thats cool enough for me. v2.1 does feel heavily forced in that one direction and there is a very narrow range of options that lets you avoid it (for Schemes mostly Secrecy and Hedonism)
Steve Ellis – What about Stewardship and Allegiance? Those can generally be pretty positive and politically neutral.