What would the potential impact be of allowing a player to start without any cyberware? I don’t have an imminent game in which to test this, but I thought I’d ask here, because I know of a potential player who may ask.
What would the potential impact be of allowing a player to start without any cyberware?
What would the potential impact be of allowing a player to start without any cyberware?
Well, it means he doesn’t get the benefits that the cyberware provides. And it means he doesn’t have that plot hook of “where did you get your cyberware”… the question of whether you’re owned or hunted by a corp, or if you’ve got some flaky equipment that’ll cause pain later.
Personally, I’d allow it if the player specifically wants to play a character without implants, but I’d insist they still had to have an owned/hunted tie to one of the corps.
Do you know why the player might ask that?
I love the gritty flavour and tough decision you have to make by being forced to start with cyberware. It makes the player have to think early on about what their character’s relationship to tech, and the whole cyberpunk world. It’s personally one of my favorite parts of character creation, and imho one of the more genius game design ideas. I personally wouldn’t let a player start without it.
That said, I know of at least two playbooks in the Touched setting that allow no starting cyberware (but there is something else that fills that engagement-to-setting-and-theme hole).
I don’t think it would break anything, per se, but it would be a break from the setting assumptions – and you’d need a replacement for their connections from how they paid for it & why they got it.
Could make for a neat “aging, barely relevant & can’t adapt to the times” kind of archetype. I’d still want to load some kind of major debt, like gambling or had to pay for life-saving cyber ware for their child or something.
It would definitely be viewed as a stigma or handicap in the operative community. Something noteworthy to comment on, at least, like Togusa in GitS.
Hamish Cameron Mostly because the individual likes taking different angles at the setting. He is the type who wants to play the anti-augmented human who ends up working with augmented humans.
A thought that I just had would be to have him watch Almost Human or the Wil Smith I, Robot and work into his background all the self-loathing he wants, to explain how he became that which he hates.
I am not sure if that journey of discovery is worth taking in game, anyway. Figured it wouldn’t hurt to ask, though, for other people’s thoughts.
That could work. The thing you need to do is come up with a good question or two that hooks them in to the world in a concrete way.
Derek Guder Great food for thought.
I am on the fence over something that might never come up, but a part of me likes the idea. As long as doing something like this didn’t hamper the rest of the group’s fun.
The biggest reason that I’m digging into it is that when I’m playing D&D, I am “that guy” (the one who challenges the assumptions of the game, often to the detriment of party symmetry). So, if this guy does play The Sprawl, and wants to buck the system, I want to afford him the same level of understanding that I’ve been afforded.
His kind of player is who the “cheap cyberware” option is aimed at, btw. Default is +hunted or +owned in my mind.
Ahh… very cool. As with most things of this sort, playing will answer some of my questions. 😉
Thank you!
Although because it’s in the rules, I totally realize that the Special Unicorn player will want to go beyond that. 😉
PbtA can handle that quite easily though.
Would you like to declare the CEO as a contact, Michael Guerra?