So, third game of the Sprawl. I had only two players (two friends who visited me and I hit 10+ when Convincing them to Play a New Game).
Something hit me : the limitation for the Declare a Contact move. I understand why, but I wondered on how to make this coherent with the fiction. One of the player said “Ok, but my character is clearly running the Sprawl for some times now, he is not new in town. He must know someone else.” Basically, he intended to buy some gear for the mission, but he already had declared a contact who could not help him on this one.
I could have answered “Yes, you know lot of people, but no one who could help you for this one”. But it would have not satisfied us.
So, instead, we agreed on the Act under Pressure move : he spread word on the street that he needed something fast. He got a strong hit, so I let him have another contact and then Hit the street with him.
Watch’all think ?
Maybe the first contact that your PC declared knows a guy that could get what your character wants? I think using Cool to determine someone’s ability to network with people is a little unrealistic – there’s Style for that. Cool already has a ton of uses – act under pressure is a great catchall move but I think you could have used fiction here to make up for the move’s limitations.
I dig it, especially for a one shot.
I also kinda like the idea of a small team who entirely out-source missions to contacts…
Kyle Bundy
Or possibly just applying the outcomes for “Act Under Pressure”, but rolling Style instead of Cool…
I do agree that Style is the stat to go with, but the fictional justification is still weird. It would be saying : ok, so I know this one guy who could connect me with more people whereas the PC is more or less already established in the sprawl.
Hamish Cameron Two-man team of a Fixer and a Pusher? You could get a lot done with only phone calls.
I am thinking something along the line of :
When you declare a Contact, announce who they are and what they do, then roll +Style.
7+ : you have a professional relationship with that Contact.
10+ : they owe you, describe what you did that put them in your debt and take +1 forward to Hit the Street with them.
6- : the MC will make them a Threat, then make a move.
Having thought more about this, i realized why I have never struck this problem: they always get what they want from a contact.
If they need something for a plan, they’ll get it, because why would I block them? The question at stake with Hit the Street is “what does it cost?”. On a 6-, the cost will be high.
Antoine Pempie I agree, it is a little weird. Perhaps to represent that the characters have been established, they should all start with a contact written down? For a one-shot, that would allow each PC two contacts to go to.
In larger groups of 6 players, that means a diligent team could declare 12 contacts by the end of the first game. Maybe a limiting factor should be more to the number of players at the table?
edit: 14 contacts if you’re got the right playbooks..
Kyle Bundy or a fixer and a soldier who never leave the ops van. 🙂
Kyle Bundy Actually, I am kinda wondering if limiting the number of contacts is really necessary, if it triggers a move with a possibility of a hard move. “You want a new Contact ? Are you sure ? The legwork Clock is already pretty late…”
Hamish Cameron Sure, but it doesn’t really adress the fictional position. For instance, my player came up with an ex-professor working in the lab for a corporation, capable of giving him intel on a particular scientific field. Then, he realised he needed specific gear for the mission (stun grenades). Yet, his only contact could not be able to provide him with the gear he wanted since he established him as a scientist.
The limit is something of a narrative pacing mechanic. Removing it wouldn’t break the game, but it might tread on the toes of the Fixer or the Hunter who both have moves that allow more contacts, so if those playbooks are in play, I wouldn’t allow it.
If you want to play the character who is really plugged into the social networks of the Sprawl, you should play the Fixer.
Hamish Cameron I am aware that would reduce the benefits provided by some playbooks. Maybe a move that would replace the move I came up with earlier that would make it less harsh/more beneficial.
Still, I find that the game assumes that the PC already have a history in the sprawl they run in, and it would be kinda incoherent for me that they know just one guy, whoever they might be.
Let’s assume that the PC is an antisocial jerk incapable of making friend. Still, he had that contact who hooked him up with at least one contract (mentioned in the Link). To accomplish that mission, he had to hit the street to gain intel and gear for that mission. One contact seems too few to represent that.
I am just spitballing here, but I feel that declaring a NPC is something great for the player to do (more worldbuilding coming from the player, more plot, more implication in the world), and be a possibility for fuckery. “Ok, you know that guy. Why is he so angry at you ?”.
It reminds me of the Circle mechanics in Torchbearer/Mouseguard.
In my game I got around this by saying you could only declare 1 contact who owes you per mission, but you could declare any number that your character owes.
Yup, that makes sense, Antoine Pempie. I’m just pointing out the two things I think you’d want to think about before you tweaked it.
In writing the rule the way I did, I felt that one new contact per player per mission would allow the set of NPCs to grow at a manageable rate that still allows the players to explore the situations and relationships of those NPCs in a little bit of detail as they arise rather than having a whole bunch of them turn up all at once. This is definitely a matter of taste, and as I said above, for a one shot (especially with a small group), you probably want the group to be able to introduce more than two total (say) NPCs into the game if that’s the kind of game they want to play.
In a campaign, this is the trade off between Declaring a Contact who is broadly useful (like a black marketeer) vs one who is narrowly useful (the security guard at the facility you want to enter).
As far as a manageable number of contacts goes, when the players establish a contact, they have little reason to establish a contact that would be similar to an existing one. It would be an unnecessary risk. That means, in my opinion, that the number of contacts would come to a balance by itself.
That also means that a PC would go to a contact again and again instead of coming up with new ones, building a deeper and deeper relationship with him, until the MC has him in his scope.
How about a small tweak. You might know a lot of people, but most of them aren’t people you have an established working relationship with.
As such, you can Hit The Street without a relevant Contact, but a) treat a 10+ as the book’s 7-9, and b) on a rolled 7-9, pick a third option from the list. Non-contacts just aren’t as reliable…
Simon Geard You can do it without any tweak. You simply Hit the street to use your network to get gear and services (“just business”) and you Declare a contact when you need to establish a long-term relationship (useful for business, but more than business). Don’t change the options, change the consequences: most of the time, the Contact will simply give you what you want. If “the price is not fair” (I don’t remember the new way the move is written), a Contact will ask for a service, not for money, whereas your network of “just business” relations will just double the price.
Even with the one-Contact restriction rule, you’ll quickly have a lot of Contacts (in our Miami ICE campaign, some PC’ have more than ten Contacts). You’ll need time to fully explore all these relationships. The last argument in favor of the restriction is that the multiplication of Contacts would give them lesser importance. It’s already a temptation when you play a Fixer or a Hunter: as a Hunter, I used to declare two Contacts each session to supply me with petty things. My Contacts didn’t have any significance to me, until the MC told me my PC was totally dull and interesting since he didn’t have any emotional tie with his Contacts. And he was right. Asking your former lover an intel is much more funny (Tiburce Guyard was here and he is still laughing) than asking a guy you don’t really care, especially when you roll a 6- and meet the husband instead. 😀
Benjamin K. It would be going against your Principle “Make everything personal”.
Plus, the move triggers when you go to a Contact.
Antoine Pempie I am not sure to understand. What will be going against the principle “make everything personnal” ?
Antoine Pempie The move triggers you to “a contact” not to “one of your Contacts”. Ergo, you can use it for both.
Using the move Hit the street to go shopping. I am not sure how you played this, but if it is just : “ok, I need a new gun. I am hitting my contacts to see who got one. I Hit the Street”.
I think it should rather be : “Ok, I need a new gun. I need to go see Rahül, the Turkish gun dealer I know”. And that would be declaring a Contact.
Plus, I may be wrong, but the Hit the Street move clearly says “When you go to a Contact for help”. That I am assuming this Contact is someone you already have listed as a Contact.
Benjamin K. Nope : “When you go to a Contact for help, roll Style.” p.31
Not contact, Contact (keyword).
Oh, it has been rewritten then. My bad.
Antoine Pempie In our sessions, it was looking like that :
-“Ok, I need a new gun. I need to go see Rahül, the Turkish gun dealer I know”.
– Want to declare him as a Contact ?
– Hum… no, it’s not that personal.”
or – Sure. We once were roommates in Humboldt University before we both fucked up our lives”.
Benjamin K. That’s why it goes against the Principle “Make everything personal”. It should always be personal.
Sure, but as I tried to demonstrate it above, if you focus your attention on few contacts and have to restrain, you deepen the relationship with them and make it much more personal. It is therefore conform with the spirit of the principle.
Just as a note, at the table, this whole discussion can be handled by the MC move tell them the requirements or consequences and ask.
Antoine Pempie what was his playbook ? Maybe as MCs we have to explain PCs that declaring a contact is a crucial question, especially when it is their first. Maybe your PC know a lot of people but no one who can provide him with stun grenade. Or maybe it would make sens if he knows one, maybe because he is a killer. But in this case, he should have choose a contact close to his playbook concept and not a scientist for his first contact.
Anyway, I think I will give 1 contact at character creation. To build a relation map. To give them strings from the beginning. As the first steps of creation is a discussion, I will ask them to choose a contact that match with their needs as playbook concept.
Still thinking about contacts. If anybody can have any contact he wants, despite the fact some playbooks are going to be less interresting, we will avoid situations between PCs using fast talk or even play hardball to convince their mates using their contact. Wich have some chances to have very interresting outcomes and issues.
The way I see it, Hit the street is clearly made for campaign on the long-run, not for one-shot session. The idea is to have, I guess, a network of contacts, slowly growing. So the first missions are always a heartbreaking experience when you have to declare a contact. Your choice really matters here.
It’s a thing that the player, not the character, should think about before declaring a contact. Do I really need this contact? Because then, I could not declare another till the next session.
Or you could declare a fixer as a contact for example, but you know you’ll be charged even more because he is a guy-in-the-middle. That’s the way to do it if you want to play it safe: declare a general contact, instead of a very specific.
Or you have your own Fixer in the team or a guy with the Fixer’s I know people or Soldier’s Recruiter moves.
So yeah, there is always a cost, sure. But hey, that’s how it works, right? Welcome to the Noir genre, buddy! 🙂