Playbooks: The Hunter
So, I kind of have to skip the hunter. He’s never been popular in my groups, and I don’t really get the playbook myself. I’m tempted to post what I think are “the problems” with the playbook, but I feel like that’s just crapping on other people’s hard work. I’m willing to post up a few questions, though, that maybe folks that have had success with playing the Hunter can provide answers to.
1) What is the Hunter’s fictional and mechanical niche? His blurb is reasonably non-specific – “finds people and secrets” – in terms of goal-orientation and fictional positioning. What cyberpunk tropes does he evoke?
1b) In what ways does the Hunter embody these themes that is distinct from other playbooks (e.g., if he’s “a researcher”, how do you feel his type of research is distinct from other playbooks’)? Which cyberpunk elements would be under-represented in his absence?
(( By the way, questions 1a and 1b can also be applied to The Tech, from my perspective. If you have anything to add there, please do. ))
2) How do his core playbook moves support that niche?
2b) The core move “It All Fits Together!” has no real fictional trigger. How do you play it?
2c) As per “2b”, for “See the angles”
2d) As per “2b”, for “Enhance”
3) What theme does “Sniper” fit into? How? What other moves support that theme, and what element of the “core” of the playbook does that enhance? What is the mechanical impact of “Sniper”? (e.g., if you were doing surveillance, a 10+ would imply your hiding place while surveilling was awesome; a 7-9 would risk the MC making a move via a fuck-up hiding, and a 6 or less would make it fair game for you to be detected. What does a 7-9 on Sniper add? What does a 10+ add? How does a 6 on Sniper modify a 10+ on Assess while performing surveillance?) I relate sniper to assess, here, because surveillance seems to be the only Hunter “action” that Sniper feeds into – there are no other indications here that he’s a, you know, sniper.
4) What role do you envision – or have you experienced – the Hunter playing during the Action phase?
5) Are there specific missions that you think the Hunter is more appropriate for? Less? Which and why?
6) What is the fictional and thematic role played by Deadbeat? How does that accord with the theme intended to be evoked by the Hunter playbook? Does this enhance the character’s fictional or mechanical positioning with respect to those targeted themes? Do you feel that it simply serves as a flag? A flag for what?
7) Big Game Hunter is triggered strictly when stopping someone from escaping a confrontation; the 10+ move to improve your ability to exert violence in a confrontation is only relevant if the target tries to escape. Does this see use in your games? How often? Often enough to justify the move? Do you see players taking this move strictly as a “flag” – indicating they want to be chasing down rats that would rather fight than talk, rather flee than fight? In the absence of this move, do you see this sort of scene occur much in your games? Again, how does this accord with the thematic examples of the Hunter?
Honestly, when I think Hunter, I sort-of kind-of think of bladerunner. But that’s it; that’s my only example, and it doesn’t really fit into the “mission based cyberpunk” that Sprawl targets. So… I readily admit, I just don’t get this playbook. I feel like I could maybe MC for a Hunter, but it would be a 1-on-1 or a private investigator’s firm, and it wouldn’t actually involve any runs. It would turn into something more like a cyber-noir investigation game rather than Shadowrun.
📌
I don’t have the wherewithal to answer all of these questions, but I will address the one I think is the most important, #5.
Hell yes there are better missions for the hunter.
Spotlight must be spread out, and middle grounds reached. I had an assassin (killer) and a reporter on the same missions. As the MC you can definitely create more things for the Hunter to do. More “Personnel” based stuff involving more contacts and legwork. In fact, when I first think of the phrase “Hit the Streets” I think of a bounty hunter. When I think “Play Hardball” I think bounty hunter.
She’s like a fixer, but instead of being a pack leader, she’s a lone wolf.
Daniel Lugo Can you elaborate on what you mean by “Spotlight must be spread out, and middle grounds reached”? What do you think of the second half of question #5?
You seem to echo my intuition that it’s difficult to think of the Hunter in the action phase – “more … legwork.” What do you think of question #4?
If he’s a “lone wolf”, which of your in-game experiences have shown you how to incorporate him into the team dynamic?
Sure. Will do when I get home.
One of the media points I’d like to touch (though it’s a bit hard to refer) is cyberpunk board game ‘Android’. One of the characters there is a bounty hunter. Story beats she has involve her being a lone wolf with ties to some characters, but never working with anyone as a team player. ‘Our goals are same today, but we’re not friends’ is a well-known trope for such people
I heavily agree that story structure for a game involving hunter has to be different from more ‘shadowrun’ type games – somewhat like your AW game is not your typical postapocalypse game. In game world, Technoir can also be referred to. In short, imagine your characters as people who are not necessarily a team, but know each other and are each one involved in part of the story. They need each other to uncover full puzzle and get them out of crosshairs of some megacorp or yakuza or any other group of bad people, they will most likely not ‘work together’ afterwards outside of helping each other out.
She needs more personal scenes and personal spotlight, which makes it harder whenever game involves more than 3 PCs, as you have to juggle spotlight not to make someone constantly be ‘in the background doing something’
I think you nailed it with Blade Runner. Other characters that would fit the type would be Gibbs (NCIS) or Mike (Breaking Bad). No matter what kind of setting you run, investigators will exist. Some of them will be on the side of the law while others will be working for hire or on a steady gig with the wrong sort of people. As to what role they play in the action phase: have you watched any of these types of shows? These guys are tough and experienced. They can talk you down with a promise of a bullet to the brain pan if you don’t put the gun down. What’s worse is they have the experience to scout the area and set a trap. Mike alone has killed people by shooting them through walls and from sniper’s nests. Hunters are the blade to the killer’s club.
As far as fictional triggers or what their moves look like in the fiction, I can again point you back to the stories they are based out of. In Blade Runner we see Deckard Enhance(ing) pictures to find people in the background or other pertinent details. You could also take this the direction of Sherlock Holmes and have your hunter nab some mud from a bootprint that he can look at under a microscope or with some other equipment to determine its point of origin (This is kaolinite, they must be down at the old quarry).
Seeing the angles is pretty simple. Let’s say you are doing some kind of extraction. The action phase starts as soon as you have planned out how to do the extraction. Your hunter gets his intel and gear. At any point doing the extraction he can then use those. So he might spend an intel because he knew some sort of setback was likely. He was expecting it. Likewise he might have brought a knock out drug because he knew the researcher wasn’t going to go quietly. His experience and deductive skills let him be more prepared to deal with any setback. The Hunter is the character everyone should be saying, “How does he always know?” about.
It all fits together is very similar to seeing the angles. It allows your hunter to make deductive leaps. Let’s say he’s on a stake out (a very hunter thing to do) and he spots someone leaving a corp building that he knows doesn’t work for the corp. He could then find out what the relationship between the unknown guy and the corp is. Maybe he’s about to grab the researcher he is supposed to be extracting when a security door slams down in front of him. “Where would I find the override for the door?” Ding ding ding, million dollar question. Of course its going to be in the security office down the hall.
I could keep running down the list, but this is getting long as it is. Hunter’s have different styles and tactics to them. Some focus more on the legwork side of things, while others will focus more on confrontation through moves like Big Game Hunter or Sniper. Jason Bourne could be a hunter focused on action. Hunter’s definitely have a place at any table.
Ok upon returning to this thread, I think it’s covered. 🙂
Ганс Андроид “I heavily agree that story structure for a game involving hunter has to be different from more ‘shadowrun’ type games – somewhat like your AW game is not your typical postapocalypse game.”
Do you have Actual Play examples to draw upon how this worked for you and your groups? I want to draw attention to the fact that the Sprawl doesn’t – and doesn’t aspire to – emulate “generic cyberpunk.” It’s built around “mission based cyberpunk” – that is, Shadowrun. Accordingly, my question wasn’t about whether we can build non-mission plots for the Hunter to participate in, but which missions he is and isn’t suited for, and how you’ve seen that emerge in actual play.
I love theorycraft as much as the next guy, folks, but I really am looking to benefit from you sharing your actual play experiences here.
Thanks steven swezey, for taking the time to provide some fictional grounding. I’d like to point you back to some of the original questions, though, as I think they’ve largely gone un-addressed in this discussion. I was going to answer your post in more depth, but I’m afraid of running on at length.
“As to what role they play in the action phase: have you watched any of these types of shows? These guys are tough and experienced. They can talk you down with a promise of a bullet to the brain pan if you don’t put the gun down. What’s worse is they have the experience to scout the area and set a trap.”
Which of the mechanical elements of the Hunter playbook support them as being “tough” guys (a la Mike)? (If the answer is Sniper or BGH, please see my lack of understanding re. Sniper and BGH).
Which of the mechanical elements of the Hunter playbook support “They can talk you down with a promise of a bullet to the brain pain if you don’t put the gun down.” Note the absence of any Fast Talk or Play Hardball moves to the playbook, though we can argue that with an Edge +2 they should be reasonably competent at Play Hardball.
I started writing why I disagree with your description of it all fits together, and realized it’s irrelevant. The fictional trigger isn’t “I observe something and make a logical deduction about it.” The move is that you just know things from passively observing. On re-reading, I can see how that could accord with a Sherlock -type character, “Reads the paper, solves a crime over breakfast.” And so the mechanical disagreement about the fictional trigger is irrelevant. I want you to look back to question #1 from my original post:
1) What is the Hunter’s fictional and mechanical niche? His blurb is reasonably non-specific – “finds people and secrets” – in terms of goal-orientation and fictional positioning. What cyberpunk tropes does he evoke?
1b) In what ways does the Hunter embody these themes that is distinct from other playbooks (e.g., if he’s “a researcher”, how do you feel his type of research is distinct from other playbooks’)? Which cyberpunk elements would be under-represented in his absence?
Bladerunner is not a cyberpunk trope in itself; it’s a good movie with some cyberpunk elements. Sherlock is not a cyberpunk trope.
“The Hunter is the character everyone should be saying, “How does he always know?” about.”
Please look back to question 1b again, with respect to:
(1) “How does he always know?” is also the niche of the Soldier and, I assert, his moves support that significantly better. Likewise, they play out in the same fictional circumstances.
(2) A high capacity for assess and research are also not unique to the Hunter. Are you asserting that the Hunter has unique fictional positioning with respect to these mechanics?
Note that I’m not attacking the Hunter, but the problems I do have with the Hunter stem from the core questions I posed in my post. Any context and interpretation you provide is valuable and appreciated, but:
(1) If it doesn’t answer my core questions it, uh, really doesn’t address the core questions. The thematic issues, and the relationship between fictional and mechanical niche, are not side-bars to “how do we justify Enhance”? They’re way, way more important.
(2) Theorycrafting is fun for everyone, me especially, but theory often doesn’t translate perfectly into actual game experiences. That’s part of why I have trouble with playbooks that were never popular at my tables. Your contributions of actual play are really, really valuable for me and, I think, everyone else reading on.
I’ve had trouble wrapping my head around the Hunter too, we have a Hunter in one of my Sprawl games so I can let you know as things develop.
I don’t think anyone has mentioned Cowboy Bebop but my guess is that Spike, Jet and Faye would be hunters. It’s been a little but since I’ve seen CB but I remember them walking around talking to people getting information to find their prey.
+J Stein High edge alone sets you up for being experienced. In fact, that is part of the description of edge. Because the hunter is build around edge as a primary attribute, thy pick up those elements without needing a single move. They then get moves that allow them to research or ask research questions using edge instead of mind. While you could build a hunter with 0 or -1 edge, I don’t know why you would. As to the position of Soldier occupying the ‘tough’ guy position better, I think you can skin a cat multiple ways. A driver with +2 synth and muscle grafts or targeting suite can easily fill the roll that a killer normally would.
I want to address the concerns of people about mission based play for the hunter, largely because it seems baffling to me. Why would the hunter not fit into mission style play? I could argue that you don’t even need a playbook to fit into the style of the game. You could pick your stats, grab a piece of cyber, 2 weapons, and 2 other pieces of gear and you’d have a playable character. The basic moves cover 90% of all situations. This is so true I find myself looking at certain moves and thinking, “We’ve been doing that using Act under pressure. Why would you buy a move to do it?” Well, because it’s a flag and more well developed, but that isn’t my point. My point is that playbook doesn’t matter at all to the structure of the game.
1) I wouldn’t say they have a niche that no one else does. You can certainly play a killer as a sniper just as you could a hunter. You could play a reporter or soldier who is good at doing legwork and tracking people down. You play the hunter because you like how the elements come together. The same is true of the Tech. You could play the hacker, but you play the tech because you don’t want to be a hot shot deck jockey. Instead you want to be the hacker who poses as the guy from IT. You play the tech because you want to not only be able to hack, but to be able to mess with their hardware too. A hunter isn’t just a marksman, but a special forces operative tracking down his quarry in hostile territory.
Now, you do trade some things off. A tech doesn’t start with the Jack-In move. A hunter needs to deal the cards in his favor to equal the killer in shooting. What they get in return is new directions that other playbooks wouldn’t be able pick up as easily. Our tech can jump to new pursuits, adding drones to his arsenal just as easily as he could medicine. Because the tech isn’t a wiz hacker, he is a wiz at anything he wants. Our hunter could further his penchant for trapping his foes, observing them, or tracking them down. A killer in the same position, who is good at shooting with a rifle, is stuck playing the role of the baddass while the hunter is off getting better at what he does.
So you see, while many playbooks can fill niches, often it is what they do besides fill that one niche the sets them apart. Triggerman isn’t a role I worry about filling. You have an odd group indeed if no one has a gun or the ability to use it. The same is true of many other roles. The hacker playbook may get the most toys when it comes to hacking, but both the infiltrator and the tech and fill their shoes. The infiltrator may be the best at getting into places they are supposed to be kept out of, but a pusher could certainly take over for the role of face. The tech makes for a fine replacement as well! Examples go on and on, but I believe I’ve made my point about niches and how playbook and niche are not synonymous.
2) Cyberpunk is a dystopia that doesn’t care if people disappear or watches them every moment of every day. Between missing persons and digging up dirt on people, the private investigator sort would be a constant of the theme. Corps would use them all the time to track down lost employees or blackmail others for their own purposes. Hunter as hitman would certainly have their place in cyberpunk as well. Cyberpunk is about people. Wherever there are people there will be hunters to manage those people.
A side note: The Sprawl is a game for 2-4 players but has more than 4 playbooks. Unlike your typical dungeon crawler, there isn’t a typical or core makeup of a group. Certain playbooks have more well defined rolls that are easier to conceptualize. Infiltrators, they break into places. Almost every group will need to break into a place at some point, so most groups have one. The tech can break into places too though. A tech with mechanic, cybered up with a neural interface and a remote control module, could certainly be adept at breaking and entering. People just don’t look at the playbook for its possibilities. They see the name name ‘Tech’ and assume that their role is to fix things. “Well that doesn’t seem very useful”.
PSA: Don’t confuse a lack of clear role as a lack of usefulness or ability to perform a role. Sometimes you have to stop and think, “Just what can I do with this?”
steven swezey 100% agreement from me, Steven. One of the most frightening assassins my players have ever faced was a rogue Techie.
steven swezey At some point, we’re talking at sufficiently different angles to one another that I’m not sure there’s still a point in continuing the exchange. However, I’ll boil it down to this:
“PSA: Don’t confuse a lack of clear role as a lack of usefulness or ability to perform a role. Sometimes you have to stop and think, “Just what can I do with this?””
Is precisely the opposite of the point of Apocalypse Engine games. They’re not GURPS, meant to mechanically support any thing you can throw at them. Playbooks aren’t just flavortext: they’re a means of embedding theme in mechanism, and vice versa, for an engine based around creating Genre play. There’s an open-endedness that’s meant to support different ways of instantiating those genre elements, but the former priority comes first.
I didn’t ask whether a Hunter could do anything “useful”, or whether they could fill a role in a party – that’s not an interesting question to me. I can make any playbook in the game fulfill any role in the game: there are no restrictions on where moves come from, or how stats are assigned; making a PC good at anything is easy in Sprawl.(That is, largely speaking, why AW had more restrictions on stat allocation (e.g., so that a Battlebabe /is/ a Battlebabe, rather than a Gunlugger with a couple different starting moves).) We can literally answer that question ahead of time: for any playbook, at any time, I can force it into being something useful on a run. And if this were a hex-crawler and I measured playbook value by “usefulness,” that would answer all questions.
None-the-less, there are playbooks that bring together a mix of elements that others simply do not. The Soldier, for instance, brings a set of moves around planning and tactics that create a single, cohesive flavor. As I stated: you can take moves from any playbook to use in any playbook. There is no virtue in a playbook that is “a mix of other stuff” (e.g., Tech); you can already do that. Playbooks are useful only as sources of unique material. Saying that “Don’t be blinded by the Reporter, they can be killer assassins,” isn’t meaningful – if I was willing to lose 1 or 2 starting moves, and suck at being a Reporter, it’s trivial to build a Reporter as a death machine. The Reporter isn’t useful because I can make him an effective killer: it’s because he brings forth a type of fictional element that is otherwise absent in the game, not because he can reprise elements represented better elsewhere in the game.
“1) I wouldn’t say they have a niche that no one else does. ” Is fundamentally the answer. Anyone can take the Soldier’s moves, but only the Soldier playbook embodies “tactical planning.” Anyone can take the Hacker’s moves, but only the Hacker’s moves together embody “running the Matrix”. They, together, create a significant flavor that, if removed from the game, would fundamentally remove something from the game. The Sprawl wouldn’t be the Sprawl if you removed the Hacker and all of his moves; as you say, that isn’t true of the Hunter. That’s key, and something to ruminate on rather than attempt to caveat.
2) You may be right on this point. I have to think about this more. He retains the issue that he’s in no way unique, as discussed above, which renders the fiction moot. (e.g., if you’re mechanically the equivalent man-hunter of a Hacker… you’re just a different fictional wrapping on the same thing, and should really just be an instantiation of a hacker with a focus on man hunting.)
1) For the Tech: He’s the McGuyver. He invokes the, science-fiction trope of technological savant. In cyperpunk it might be a scavenger, making the best out of the materials they can get their hand on for free/cheap ;). In the Matrix, the guys on the outside had to scavenge and recycle all they could to keep their hover ships/equipment running.
the tech is bring the duffel bag of experimental gadgets [gear] to the party. He’s the guy putting that sweet red dot sight on your rifle as a birthday present.
Basically if a player likes to be creative/improvise, and day dreams about making a bomb out of bubble gum and a paper clip, then the Tech might be for them.
1b) For the Tech: Are there other ways to get a workshop and the fictional positioning to modify gear? I literally don’t have all the playbooks in front of my at the moment…