Revealing Directive.
I’m preparing to play a reporter and the directive that most speaks to me is Revealing. The concept of incentivizing the finding of information that leads to breaking a story. My issue is that fill in the blank gap and the fact that directives can only be used once. I have a few thoughts about this:
1) Each time you fill in the blank differently on a directive you have made it unique and thus able to be used again in its new form.
2) You could instead take a more meta tact and fill in the directive with “Headline Threats”.
Which do you think makes for better play, or would you use a different method? I feel like the first method gives me more control over what the issue is be looking into is, while the second sets up more of a discovery and chasing of whatever issue the MC wants to represent.
What do you mean each directive can only be used once? That’s true of mission directives. I don’t believe that’s true of personal directives. Personal directives are on going issues with the character. You mark XP every time that issue impacts you.
I meant when you change it. Thus when you resolve the story involving the directive you can’t return to it once you change it. Thus the question is: is the revealing directive a single directive or a slew of potential directives (depending on how you fill in the blank).
From the rulebook:
“Talk about this decision with the group. Sometimes it can be interesting to keep the Directive and change the specific details. Does satisfying your specific urge for vengeance stop you from being a vengeful person? Perhaps you will simply find a new target for your vengeance.”
I would have no problem with a Reporter who, once they get their first big scoop, then set their sights on a different investigation.
Aniket Schneider Great catch! I seemed to be missing that repeatedly somehow. Thanks for the assist.
I’m actually a little curious – the rule that says you can’t repeat a directive smells like it’s designed to suppress some specific undesirable player behaviour, but I’m not sure exactly what. Maybe it is just to underline that a directive should be properly resolved before changing it?
I think for Reporters, Directives and their ‘cases’ should be separate.
Reporters expose the truth, it’s what they do. Each time they do so successfully, they take a Corporate Clock down a peg as they ruin their public image. This a reward for playing the Playbook effectively.
I don’t think the Reporter should be able to change their Directive each time he chases a new story. Directives are deeper than that. They’re the ankers that bind the character emotionally. They are the character’s hopes and vices, his emotional outlets and life goals.
A Reporter with Revealing should be chasing after That One Big Thing.
Something that’s affected them personally.
Not just the story they’re trying to break this month.
Rick Sorgdrager Why would you say that the result of a story clock hitting midnight is the reduction of a corporate clock? I always figured it would be the other way around, with the Corp becoming more aware of you do to the story breaking. I could see it crippling a threat clock as the goal of that threat is exposed and foiled. The book seemed oddly vague about what should happen to the clocks other than that something was likely to occur.
I don’t have the book handy, but isn’t it explicitly stated somewhere that finishing Story Clocks is one of the few ways that the players can lower Corp Clocks?
I remember reading this, anyway.
Rick Sorgdrager, it says, “The exact implications of this for the game will vary based on the story, but it should have a major impact on the implicated parties and will affect at least one Corporate Clock” in the playbook from midnight and, “When nose for a story resolves, it can have major effects on one or two of the Corporate Countdown Clocks” in chapter 9. If it says it explicitly anywhere, I haven’t found it.
From the book :
“The exact implications of this for the game will
vary based on the story, but it should have a major impact on the implicated parties and will affect at least one Corporate Clock.”
As opposed to the Noise clock’s effect :
“Now that damage control is complete, they can deal with the Reporter permanently. Advance any relevant Corporate or Threat Clocks.”
The wording here is interesting. Noise clock specifically states it will ADVANCE Corp and Threat Clocks, but the story clock says it will have a major impact on the implicated parties and AFFECT a Corporate Clock.
I’ve always taken this to mean you’ve dealt the damage, the Corp is busy cleaning up, their public image takes a big hit, and they’re so busy dealing with the fallout they temporarily have to avert their gaze from you, lowering the Clock 1 or 2 ticks.
Whoops! Double quoting from the book! Check my thoughts below the quotations.
Separate from this though, I still stand by the fact that the Reveal Directive should be something more fundamental to the character than their current case.
I could see it going the way you put it Rick Sorgdrager. Taking a swing at you would validate your accusations or at least cast suspicious, so they need to back off in the short term till the whole thing gets buried in the news cycles.
I guess my views on directives might be somewhat different. In my mind they represent side missions, extra parameters, or personal entanglements. As a player my directives act as a tag or signal to the things I want in the game, however I can’t expect they will show up in any particular mission if I make them too specific. Trying to strike a balance is key. You want one directive that will complicate the mission often while still being a challenge you want to overcome, and one that might be more specific but is important to the character.
Chasing a story is something that can be done often, but not trivially. Spending a hold to activate your move to gather evidence isn’t enough in my mind (I also won’t allow an ante of 3 Cred for the mission found for financial directives either). Chasing any story is likely to activate new threats, so it is definitely something you can expect to complicate the game.
My character in particular is owned by a media Corp that may chose to reposes her body if she doesn’t produce content at an acceptable rate. So chasing stories isn’t just what she does, it’s what she does to live to see another day. If your curious, her body and brain are an advanced biotech android of sorts. Her brain was uploaded into a biotech computer ala ghost in the shell. As an emergent technology, it’s worth a lot.
That sounds rad! I bet it works super well for that story!
In essence I’m just scared of one of my groups mostly consisting of power gamers willing to jump in front of trucks to trigger Masochist haha! So I can be a bit tough on the narrative stakes of Directives.
Your game sounds really cool though!
I hear you on the power gamers front, although I’ve encountered more players who don’t know what to take so they end up taking something lame (financial…). It’s not that financial couldn’t be good, I could easily see a character who was trying to repay the mob or support an ill family member with that sort of directive. I have to explain that just being greedy to be greedy is likely to get you shot if it ever comes out and screws the other characters. People might forgive someone trying to keep their mom alive at a clinic, but not the guy who just wants a flashier ride or pad.
Daniel Lugo is starting us up this Sunday. I’m pretty pumped for our first game. Fingers crossed that it is as good as it seems to be shaping up to be.