Hey, have a question about the hunter move: On The Trail.
On the Trail: When you want to find someone or something, name your target.
When you gain [intel], you may note that it concerns your target. When you
spend three such [intel], the MC will describe where your target is; you say
how the clues led you to that knowledge and how you have your target or its
defenses at a disadvantage.
My question is how does the move look when utilized in your game and “note that it concerns your target”
Does this mean the player discribes fictionally how their research lead to this clue or is it possible to gather research or “farm intel” (as my players call it)
I had a player who began farming intel by researching “who owns the corner store” “where would i find my teammates hide out” ect ect. the intel gathered was then spent to track their target a group who had barricaded themselves inside an arcology. I allowed him to use the move and the intel but only gave him the building and the exterior defenses (since no one on the team researched the building or had ever stepped foot inside nor did they know who was leading this group). He seemed adamant the move should have revealed all their defenses and any leaders since he was tracking the group.
im looking for clarity on if i made the right call here any assistance would be appreciated.
The player may describe how they have it’s defenses at a disadvantage. If they want to do that they should have a story as to how what they did makes that happen. (“I jacked the password of the security chief out of his phone when he was buying cigs”). They may not know all the defenses but speaking overall they can choose to put the defenses at a disadvantage.
I framed what their exterior defenses looked like asked him how they were at a disadvantage. Do you think I should have given more information on their total defense including beyond the barricade?
Ask yourself: did I give enough information for the player to put “the defenses” at a disadvantage? Then ask him. “Inner” vs “outer” defenses don’t matter. This is the future, there’s probably a hundred million layers of defense on everything. He should get enough information to describe putting the defenses of the target to a disadvantage. If he can’t figure out a way to do it the two of you should talk more.
I guess i havent expressed my confusio naccurately.
to answer your question “did i give enough info”:
the player isnt looking to gather intel on the target. theyre looking to gather intel on anything and then spend that to reveal the target.
to give examples one of his research question was “who is my teammate employeed by” he then later asked “where does my contact get his supplies”
neither of these research moves were directed towards legwork of the mission they were done to “farm intel to activate the move”
Does that make more sense?
like how does researching a pack of cigarettes three times tell you how to locate a corporate VIP?
Ask the player! Why did he describe his Intel gathering as looking at a pack of cigarettes?
It sounds like he hasn’t named his target?
No his target and objective was to locate the resistance (they already knew the location). the player was trying and succeeded in farming intel.
he researched the pack of cigarettes three times because each time gave 1 intel.
he then used his intel gathered from the pack of smokes to locate the resistance.
that is the core of my problem that his research isnt fictionally relevant but wants it to result in information about his target.
he was searching for “group A” he chose to go on the trail looking for them by researching a pack of cigarettes three times. he then gained three intel and asked me where “group A” was.
my issue is that staring at a pack of cigarettes wouldnt have fictionally given clues about their location, disposition, or defense
how should i address this kind of intel farming?
Chadrick Butler
“My question is how does the move look when utilized in your game and “note that it concerns your target”
You clarify that if the player tries to spend that particular [intel] for anything else they can’t. You will literally just remind them that [intel] is “reserved” for lack of a better term.
Tell them to write ” X intel: reserved for On the Trail”, on their scratch paper…
“Does this mean the player discribes fictionally how their research lead to this clue”
That’s the only way it works. There is no other viable interpretation.
“He seemed adamant the move should have revealed all their defenses and any leaders since he was tracking the group.”
Revealing one obvious defense seem reasonable; allowing the player to initially approach overcoming it without hindrance from a hard move. If things devolve into a semantics/rule-lawyering debate, talk to them like an adult and explain this move does not give advantage on an infinite amount of defenses a given entity could have (unless they could explain their omnipotence fictionally).
Yeah, you must name the target when you generate the Intel.
I really appreciate the input. If i can ask for clarification again:
he says “im in the trail for john smith” he then proceeds to research something unrelated to john smith (the pack of cigaretted example)
that would be the moment i ask him how this research of the pack of cigarettes helped him get info on John Smith.
This is definitly a metagame issue in my opinion. He is saying as long as he have three intel regardless of how its acquired results in triggering this move.
Im saying the fiction comes first and doing research on a can of sods three times (althought it mechanically gives intel) does not result in knowing where john is hiding. I feel for fiction sake the research should at least be with the intention of finding the target or info on a target.
he is looking for random reasons to reseach to give an example the team rendezvous at one of the PC’s safe house. he will research an item in their house like “im gonna research who owns their washing machine” the apply that info to hunting down john smith
Is that something i should stop or should i put the justification in his hands? “Okay tell me how this washing machine has given you a clue about johns location?”
I’d refer to: “…you may note that it concerns your target.”
This player is clearly adopting a rules as written perspective, so I’d invoke the may clause and exercise your authority as GM to say, “No, no it doesn’t concern your target unless you can explain it in the fiction.”
I’m not saying this is an ideal way to run the game, but it does preserve both the spirit of the rule as well as the exact way it is written.
It’s also worth noting that spending the 3 Intel is NOT the trigger for the move. Triggers are always actions/events in the fiction. If the player doesn’t have a way to describe how their research could possibly have lead to the discovery, it’s perfectly reasonable to say they haven’t triggered the move.
And lastly, while it’s pretty lame IMO, using the move in the way the player wants to is not going to break anything. In fact, it may just be a way for the group to skip over parts of the game they find boring so they can get to the stuff they enjoy.
Jared Hunt
Thank you so much for your input i will likely use this to address it if it continuesto be an issue